Projection by Region

Here are some details of the final projection by region. I will pick one riding per region where either I am skeptical of the projection, or that will be interesting to watch tonight.

Atlantic Canada (32)
LIB - 18.8 (19 projected ahead), 38.5%
CON - 9.0 (9), 28.6%
NDP - 4.1 (4), 19.7%
GRN - 0.1 (0), 10.2%
Riding where I don't believe the projection: Acadie--Bathurst. The NDP's severe organizational problems in NB are not reflected in the model, as there was no breakout of NB in any poll since August.

Québec (78)
BQ - 35.3 (39), 31.3%
LIB - 31.6 (30), 32.1%
CON - 8.7 (7), 15.7%
NDP - 1.8 (1), 12.5%
GRN - 0, 4.1%
Riding where I don't believe the projection: Saint-Maurice--Champlain. Minister François-Philippe Champagne has a high profile in QC and has spent a lot of time with the people of his riding. I expect him to survive.

Ontario (121)
LIB - 64.9 (68), 38.5%
CON - 44.3 (43), 33.9%
NDP - 11.7 (10), 18.7%
GRN - 0, 5.8%
Riding to watch: I have trouble picking since there are so many...

Manitoba/Saskatchewan (28)
CON - 19.9 (20), 48.4%
LIB - 5.0 (6), 21.9%
NDP - 3.1 (2), 3.1%
GRN - 0, 3.7%
Riding to watch: Regina--Wascana. Long-time MP and Liberal Minister Ralph Goodale could be threatened. He survived in 2011 when things were much worse for the Liberals overall, but this year, there is anger in SK, and the Conservative leader is from a neighbouring riding. How much will the NDP vote rally around him?

Alberta (34)
CON - 32.2 (33), 62.4%
NDP - 1.4 (1), 15.5%
LIB - 0.4 (0), 16.4%
GRN - 0, 2.6%
Riding to watch: Edmonton Strathcona. This is the one projected NDP seat, though I think the model is probably too sanguine in terms of margin of victory. A Mainstreet poll this week was publicly described as showing a very tight race.

British Columbia (42)
CON - 18.5 (18), 32.8%
NDP - 11.8 (13), 25.0%
LIB - 9.9 (9), 27.1%
GRN - 1.1 (1), 11.3%
Riding to watch: Nanaimo--Ladysmith. This isn't just a two-way NDP/Green race, but actually a three-way NDP/Green/Tory race. If the NDP and Greens split the left-wing vote evenly, the Conservative candidate could squeak by. This is also where the limitations of my shortcut for estimating probabilities of victory are apparent: Green MP Paul Manly obviously has a better than 10% chance of holding this riding, but his probability of victory is being underestimated due to being in third place.

FINAL 2019 Projection: \o/

The following polls have been added to the model:
Mainstreet's 10/19-20 national poll (current weight among national polls: 30%)
Research Co's 10/18-20 national poll (current weight among national polls: 9%)
EKOS' 10/17-20 national poll (current weight among national polls: 11%)
Forum's 10/18 national poll (current weight among national polls: 3%)
Nanos' 10/19 and 10/20 national polls (national results only; current weight among national polls: 6% and 18% respectively)
I have also updated ON regional adjustments using the breakdown from Campaign Research's 10/16-20 national poll, as well as Atlantic Canada and BC regional adjustments using the breakdown from Innovative Research's 10/15-17 national polls.
For a full list of included polls, see previous Projection posts.

And I'm finally done! This projection update includes polls that are favourable to the Liberals (EKOS, Forum) and polls that are negative for them (Mainstreet, Nanos). Because the latter have more weight thanks to their recency and sample sizes, the projection moves against the Liberals.

As you can see, the final projection gives an insignificant edge to the Liberals, which is flipped from the "quickie" projection I posted on Twitter just after the final poll was released. The Liberals gained roughly 1 seat, at the expense of the NDP. What accounts for the difference?
- In order to avoid Nanos and Mainstreet being the only polls with a midpoint date after Oct. 19, I used the Oct. 19-20 roll-up from the EKOS poll, and inferred Oct. 17-18 results, which were included as a separate poll. This slightly increases the weight on EKOS, which helps the Liberals and hurts the Tories. (As it turns out, the inferred results were given a weight below 0.5% by the model, so it doesn't matter if they're slightly off.)
- Updates to regional adjustments for BC, ON and Atlantic Canada help the Tories and Liberals and hurt the NDP and Greens.

Projection as of the latest national poll (midpoint: October 20)
LIB - 133.2 (32.1%)
CON - 132.7 (33.6%)
BQ - 35.3 (7.1%)
NDP - 34.5 (18.1%)
GRN - 1.2 (5.9%)

IND - 0.6
PPC - 0.5
If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.

Without the turnout adjustment, the projection would be:
LIB - 134.2 (31.6%)
CON - 126.0 (32.1%)
NDP - 39.1 (19.1%)
BQ - 36.1 (7.1%)
GRN - 1.4 (6.9%)

IND - 0.7
PPC - 0.6

I very crudely estimate the confidence intervals of the projection as follows:
80% confidence intervals
LIB 95-175
CON 95-170
BQ 20-50
NDP 15-50

95% confidence intervals
LIB 85-190
CON 85-185
BQ 15-55
NDP 12-55

Seats changing hands since the last projection:
- In NL, LIBs get St. John's South--Mount Pearl back from the NDP.
- In NL, CONs regain Avalon from LIBs.
- In PE, CONs regain Egmont from LIBs.
- In QC, the BQ regains Beauport--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île d'Orléans--Charlevoix from CONs.

- In QC, the BQ regains Saint-Maurice--Champlain and Argenteuil--La Petite-Nation from LIBs.

- In ON, CONs regain Peterborough--Kawartha from LIBs.

- In ON, the NDP regains Oshawa from CONs.

- In MB, the NDP gets Elmwood--Transcona back from CONs.

- In BC, CONs regain Cloverdale--Langley City from LIBs.

- In BC, the NDP retakes Nanaimo--Ladysmith from GRNs.

Below is a map showing the seat-by-seat leading party. Please keep in mind that my projection uses riding polls only if they are not behind a paywall - i.e. very few riding polls outside QC are used. Moreover, I only take into account factors described in my methodology description. So I am tying one hand behind my back - no "the NDP isn't winning Acadie--Bathurst because of their organizational problems in NB and because this year's candidate does not share a last name with long-time MP Yvon Godin."

As you can see, the Liberals have a 5-seat lead in ridings projected ahead. The sums of probabilities are roughly equal because the Liberals win more tight races. Below are the 75 ridings where the gap between the top two parties is less than 5%:

A gap of less than 5% means that there is at least a 30% chance that the projected winner won't actually win. I expect to get almost half of these ridings (say, 30-35 out of 75) wrong.

Next, here are the 55 ridings where the gap is between 5% and 10%:

In "standard" two-way races, these projections should be correct 70-85% of the time. However, in three-way races, the probability of error significantly increases. This is also the case in special situations, such as the Territories, for which we don't have any polling. Therefore, I would expect to get 15-20 of these wrong.

Of the remaining 208 ridings, the standings are:
91 CON
82 LIB
20 BQ
14 NDP
  1 GRN
Of these:
- 56 have a gap between 10 and 16 points (85-95% chance of being correct in a standard two-way race),
- 58 have a gap between 16 and 22 points (95-99% chance of being correct), and
- 94 have a gap above 22 points.
Therefore, I would expect to get 10-15 of these wrong. Adding up the expected numbers of mistakes, there should be 55-70 of them; in other words, I expect 79-84% accuracy on an average night. If the polling averages are right, accuracy will likely be slightly higher, while if there is a significant polling error, then accuracy could be slightly lower.

Here's a potential pre-Speaker seating chart of the House of Commons:

Projection Update: Corbett 8/11-13 and Global News/Ipsos 8/16-19

The following polls have been added to the model:
Global News/Ipsos' 8/16-19 national poll (current weight among national polls: 24 28%; only publicly available national numbers used)
Corbett Communications' 8/11-13 ON poll
For a full list of included polls, see previous Projection posts.

Update Aug. 20: Poll weights updated after information about the number of respondents was obtained. This resulted in small changes (under 0.5 seats and 0.1% per party, as shown below).

Once again, EKOS put out some ON and QC numbers that are much more favourable for the Liberals, relative to the polling average, than the national numbers, which weren't fully provided. Therefore, once again, to avoid biasing the projection by including only the parts of a poll favourable to one party, I am not adding the EKOS numbers to the model (especially since it was also noted that EKOS' unpublished ON numbers from other nights aren't quite this strong for the Liberals).

Please note that this projection reflects an adjustment in Longueuil--Saint-Hubert to account for Pierre Nantel switching allegiance. (The adjustment actually makes no visible difference due to that riding still projected as a LIB/BQ race.)

Projection as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 17.5)

LIB - 155.2 155.3 (33.4%)
CON - 140.1 139.7 (35.1%)
NDP - 24.9 25.3 (14.1 14.2%)
BQ - 13.0 12.9 (4.3 4.2%)
GRN - 3.8 (9.9 9.8%)
IND - 0.6
PPC - 0.5

If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.

The Ipsos poll helped the NDP, but had little effect on the projection for the two main parties: it is slightly less favourable to the Liberals than other polls, but including it also reduced (in fact, made negative) the weight on the July Ipsos poll which was much worse for the Liberals. The Global News article showed some very good Liberal numbers in QC and poor ones in ON; however, those were not included because the other parties' numbers were not provided. (The non-inclusion of Ipsos and EKOS ON numbers roughly balances out.) I also had to back out the number of respondents from the margin of error. If this were during the campaign, it would actually be illegal for Global to report the poll without stating the number of respondents... (Update: The number of respondents is available in this tweet.)

The projection improved for the Liberals and worsened for the Conservatives mainly due to the Corbett poll, which shows a healthy Liberal lead in ON.

In terms of seats projected ahead, relative to the last projection:
- LIBs retake Québec from CONs.
- Update: LIBs retake Laurentides--Labelle from BQ.
- NDP retakes Berthier--Maskinongé from BQ. (Note that, as a policy, I do not include leaked internal polling.)
- LIBs retake St. Catharines, Vaughan--Woodbridge, Cambridge from CONs.
- LIBs retake Hamilton East--Stoney Creek from NDP.
- NDP retakes North Island--Powell River (update: and Burnaby South) from CONs.

Why Was the 2015 Projection Off?

Unlike in past elections, where a uniform swing model (applied regionally and with suitable adjustments based on additional information) would have performed very well using actual vote shares, both polling misses (mainly in Québec) and model shortcomings played a significant role in the 2015 projection being quite off. Unfortunately, those sources of error happened to push in the same direction.

On actual numbers for each of the 6 standard polling regions of the country, the model would have projected 168 Liberals, 114 Conservatives, 51 NDP, 4 Bloc and 1 Green. That is quite a bit better than the actual projection, but still farther away than had been the case in earlier elections (where misses with actual numbers tended to be around 5 seats for the main parties, rather than around 15).

Here's an analysis of what was off for each polling region. As you can see, there isn't much of a common thread across the country. The only issue that is somewhat recurring is that vote shares tend to move less in seats where a party has either very low or very high support (which makes sense: you can't drop by much if you're already really low, and you have fewer potential new supporters if you're already really high), and thus tend to move a bit more in other seats. Thus, the 2019 model will attempt to take this into account. A sneak preview is that, without any adjustments (e.g. for specific ridings or areas such as the 905), it would have projected 181 Liberals, 114 Conservatives, 41 NDP, 1 Bloc and 1 Green on 2015 numbers. (Update Aug. 9: The figures have changed as the 2019 model has been slightly modified.)

Projected Actual [Projection on actual popular vote, without ad hoc last-minute adjustments]

Atlantic Canada
LIB - 26 (53.5%) 32 (58.7%) [27]
CON - 3 (21.1%) 0 (19.0%) [3]
NDP - 3 (20.2%) 0 (18.0%) [2]
GRN - 0 (4.2%) 0 (3.5%) [0]

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals outperformed the polls. Moreover, the model included an adjustment based on historical results that had New Brunswick partly swinging with the rest of Atlantic Canada, and partly with Ontario. That backfired, as the Liberal swing in NB was actually similar to the swing in the rest of Atlantic Canada (and much higher than in ON). Finally, the Liberals gained more in tight ridings than in blowouts. Those gains were from both the NDP and Tories, so I don't see this as evidence of strategic voting.

Lessons: Simply model NB with the rest of Atlantic Canada. If a party is gaining in a region and has extremely high support in some ridings, further gains in those ridings may be smaller - and thus, gains in other ridings may be larger and bring more seats.

Québec
NDP - 31 (26.3%) 16 (25.3%) [17]
LIB - 26 (30.1%) 40 (35.6%) [47]
CON - 11 (20.5%) 12 (16.8%) [10]
BQ - 10 (19.4%) 10 (19.4%) [4]
GRN - 0 (2.6%) 0 (2.3%) [0]

In Québec, the Liberals again outperformed the polls. Note that here, with actual results, the projection would actually have given them too many seats! The Bloc did exactly as I projected, but the model would have given it too few seats had the actual percentages been used for other parties.

The reasons why the model would have been pretty off even with actual vote percentages are a bit complicated. In the 450 area, the Bloc lost less support than the model expected while the NDP lost more. In the 514 area, the NDP held up better than expected, while the Liberals gained less. Put these together, and you have the Bloc winning more seats than expected, and the Liberals winning fewer.

Also, in the Quebec City area, the Conservatives did much better than expected (making big gains relative to 2011 while actually sliding in the rest of the province) at the expense of everyone else.

Lessons: Perhaps the smaller changes in the 514 could be picked up by a model with regional elasticities as the 514 vote often moves less than the rest of Québec. But I'm not sure how it would have been possible to project what happened in the 450 and the Quebec City area without access to regional polling breakdowns...

Ontario
LIB - 71 (44.3%) 80 (44.8%) [73]
CON - 36 (34.3%) 33 (35.0%) [34]
NDP - 14 (16.7%) 8 (16.6%) [14]
GRN - 0 (3.7%) 0 (2.9%) [0]

In Ontario, the polls were pretty much bang on, at least after my pro-CPC turnout adjustment! The seat projection, though, was too charitable to the NDP, who didn't resist as well as expected. The problem was almost entirely in Toronto and Northern Ontario. Was it strategic voting in these strong NDP/Liberal areas? The Liberals targeting smartly? Or was it simply that the NDP had more votes to lose?

The model did very well in the rest of the province. An adjustment based on regional breakdowns from polls amplifying the swing in the 905 area (from Tories to Liberals) helped, as raw uniform swing would have left the Tories with too many seats (around 40).

Lesson: Assuming somewhat proportional swing, rather than uniform swing, would have helped predict bigger NDP drops in Toronto and Northern Ontario.

Manitoba/Saskatchewan
CON - 17 (41.7%) 15 (43.0%) [17]
LIB - 5 (32.6%) 8 (34.4%) [5]
NDP - 6 (20.7%) 5 (19.1%) [6]
GRN - 0 (4.1%) 0 (2.7%) [0]

In the Prairies, the polls did well too. The Liberals picked up 3 more seats than the model expected, all in the Winnipeg area. In those 3 seats (and nowhere else in MB/SK), the Liberals outperformed the projection by more than 10 points! And this didn't really look like strategic voting as the gains were from both the Tories and the NDP.

In fact, the Liberals overperformed across the board in MB, and underperformed across the board in SK, while it was the reverse for the Conservatives. Not exactly sure why - the provincial Tories were quite popular in MB at the time. The Liberals usually get more votes in MB than SK, but the gap has exploded: ~4% in 2006 and 2008, ~8% in 2011, ~21% in 2015. The Tories went from just 3% more in SK than MB in 2011 to 11% more in 2015. Perhaps SK went from "more like MB" to "more like AB" due to its resource boom?

Lesson: Not sure... This looks like a case of two provinces no longer moving together politically, but unfortunately lumped together in most polls.

Alberta
CON - 32 (56.3%) 29 (59.6%) [32]
LIB - 1 (24.4%) 4 (24.6%) [1]
NDP - 1 (15.0%) 1 (11.6%) [1]
GRN - 0 (3.3%) 0 (2.5%) [0]

The story is pretty straightforward and intuitive in AB: Liberals support picked up more in cities, which is where they had a chance of winning seats.

Lesson: Here, the proportional model would have worked better if you looked at the Liberal number. But it would have worked worse if you looked at the Conservative number: Tory support dropped more in ridings where they were already weaker. So really, the lesson is that a party's support moves most when it's neither too high nor too low.

British Columbia
CON - 20 (32.1%) 10 (30.0%) [18]
NDP - 11 (25.1%) 14 (25.9%) [11]
LIB - 10 (32.8%) 17 (35.2%) [12]
GRN - 1 (8.9%) 1 (8.2%) [1]

In BC, the Liberals slightly outperformed the polls, at the expense of the Conservatives. The bigger issue, though, was that the model was way too generous to the Conservatives seat-wise. Here, we have perhaps the patterns most suggestive of strategic voting and/or excellent targeting by Liberals/NDP. The Liberals way underperformed uniform swing in Vancouver Island and the Kootenays, where it is weaker than the NDP, and somewhat exceeded it elsewhere. Where Liberals underperformed, the Greens were the main beneficiaries EXCEPT in tight NDP-Conservative races, where the NDP benefited. This helped the NDP win/solidify seats on Vancouver Island and the Kootenays.

The above paragraph also means that the Liberals overperformed elsewhere, which helped the Liberals win seats. That alone does not, however, explain why the Liberals gained so many extra seats. It appears that the far suburbs of Vancouver (seats like Mission--Matsqui--Fraser Canyon, Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge and Cloverdale--Langley City) swung especially strongly toward the Liberals.

Also, on the basis of regional breakdowns from polls, I had the NDP being weaker than uniform swing on Vancouver Island, to the benefit of the Greens. As it turns out, while this was correct for the Greens, it was wrong for the NDP - it was the Liberals that undershot there. This was significant as it made the model incorrectly give two NDP seats to the Tories. I also made an adjustment based on a riding poll that incorrectly shifted a seat from the Liberals to the Tories.

Finally, the model did not account for James Moore leaving politics and the Greens not running in Kelowna--Lake Country, both of which likely added seats to the Liberals.

So, in short, uniform swing would have been somewhat off in BC, perhaps due to strategic voting. Moreover, counterproductive inclusion of regional breakdown/riding polls, as well as idiosyncratic riding-level factors, happened to push in the same direction. As a result, the model was frankly embarrassingly inaccurate in BC.

Lesson: Not sure how to guard against inaccurate regional breakdowns, other than ignoring them. But then again regional breakdowns elsewhere (e.g. in Québec) would have been so useful! Other than that, it looks like strategic voting might have been a substantial phenomenon in BC.

Comparison of 2015 Projections

This is a post I started writing after the 2015 election, but never finished. I provide it in its unfinished state, "for the record."

2015 Final Projections (italics = not model-based)
178-115-44-  1-0-0 (37%, 31%, 22%, 4%, 4%) CVM Election Model
177-  95-53-11-1-1 (38.0%, 30.9%, 21.3%, 5.7%, 3.4%) Teddy on Politics
160-120-50-  7-1-0 (36.7%, 32.0%, 20.4%, 5.2%, 4.0%) The Signal
149-105-81-  2-1-0 David Akin's Predictionator
147-115-67-  7-2-0 (39.3%, 32.4%, 19.4%, 4.1%, 4.1%) Sauder Prediction Market
146-118-66-  7-1-0 (37.2%, 30.9%, 21.7%, 4.9%, 4.4%) ThreeHundredEight
142-119-66-10-1-0 (37.3%, 32.4%, 20.1%, 4.9%, 4.3%) Canadian Election Watch
142-116-68-11-1-0 Election Atlas
140-115-79-  3-1-0 LISPOP
138-117-76-  6-1-0 (36.8%, 31.8%, 22.7%, 4.2%, 4.5%) Le calcul électoral
138-120-75-  1-1-0 Election Almanac
137-120-75-  8-1-0 (36.8%, 32.5%, 21.4%, 4.6%, 4.1%) Too Close to Call
128-120-83-  5-2-0 Election Prediction Project

Sum of absolute seat deviations (divided by 2)
11 Teddy on Politics
16 CVM Election Model
27 The Signal
40 Sauder Prediction Market
41 ThreeHundredEight
42 Canadian Election Watch
42 Election Atlas
43 David Akin's Predictionator
49 Too Close to Call
50 Le calcul électoral
51 LISPOP
55 Election Almanac
61 Election Prediction Project

This time, I was in the middle of the pack. (Here is how I did in 2011.) Note that my projection without the turnout adjustment was off by 34, which is significantly better than average.

Three models did particularly well by this measure. If I understand correctly, Teddy on Politics injects a fair bit of personal judgment into his projections - they're not as heavily based on polls as the other projections. This time, he got things very right (which happens fairly often, if you've been following him, although there are also big misses), foreseeing which way the wind was blowing. The CVM election model appeared to have been lucky: the seat model was too extreme, but the Liberal support was underestimated, and the two errors canceled out. For example, it correctly projected the Liberal Atlantic sweep, but on percentages with which the sweep would not have happened (as the Liberals won some seats narrowly). And it incorrectly predicted an NDP wipeout in Ontario, which didn't even come close to happening.

This leaves us with The Signal, which did very well. A big part of this is that it correctly foresaw that the Liberal Québec vote would be quite efficient. Unfortunately, its description of methodology is not very detailed, so it is hard to see why exactly it did better than everyone else - especially given that it had the lowest Liberal popular vote projection. Still, congrats to The Signal!

Average absolute popular vote deviation for 5 parties
0.46 Sauder Prediction Market
0.84 Canadian Election Watch
0.94 The Signal
1.02 Teddy on Politics
1.16 Too Close to Call
1.30 ThreeHundredEight
1.40 CVM Election Model
1.48 Le calcul électoral

By this measure, I provided the best poll-based projection. The unadjusted numbers were off by 0.90 on average. The polls did quite well this time, and adjusting polls to reflect the latest trends helped. In fact, had my adjustments not been so cautious, the vote (and seat) projections would have been even more accurate - perhaps close to the almost-on-the-dot Sauder market prediction.

Speaking of the Sauder prediction market, feeding its popular vote prediction into most seat models would probably have produced more accurate seat counts than it predicted. This suggests that while market participants were good at guessing the overall vote, the seat count conversion proved challenging. This is why quantitative seat models help!

Number of ridings correctly projected
275 Teddy on Politics
269 ThreeHundredEight
268 Canadian Election Watch
261 Election Prediction Project

Projection Roundup

If you are a Canadian citizen over 18 and haven't voted yet, VOTE. You have until (all times local):
- 7pm in the Pacific time zone
- 7:30pm in the Mountain time zone
- 8:30pm in the Central, Atlantic and Newfoundland time zones
- 9:30pm in the Eastern time zone
Find your polling station at Elections Canada's website.

Click here for a summary of the projection.
Click here for the projected winner by riding.
Click here for the complete trends since early September.

Below are the projections based on polling aggregates - there are links to all of these on the left. They are listed in increasing magnitude of Liberal victory (difference between Liberal and Conservative seat counts).

L-C-N-B-G-Other (Vote L, C, N, B, G)
137-120-75-  8-1-0 (36.8%, 32.5%, 21.4%, 4.6%, 4.1%) Too Close to Call
138-120-75-  1-1-0 Election Almanac*
138-117-76-  6-1-0 (36.8%, 31.8%, 22.7%, 4.2%, 4.5%) Le calcul électoral
142-119-66-10-1-0 (37.3%, 32.4%, 20.1%, 4.9%, 4.3%) Canadian Election Watch
140-115-79-  3-1-0 LISPOP*
142-116-68-11-1-0 Election Atlas
146-118-66-  7-1-0 (37.2%, 30.9%, 21.7%, 4.9%, 4.4%) ThreeHundredEight
149-105-81-  2-1-0 David Akin's Predictionator**
160-120-50-  7-1-0 (36.7%, 32.0%, 20.4%, 5.2%, 4.0%) The Signal
178-115-44-  1-0-0 (37%, 31%, 22%, 4%, 4%) CVM Election Model
177-  95-53-11-1-1 (38.0%, 30.9%, 21.3%, 5.7%, 3.4%) Teddy on Politics
*Do not appear to include late polls from yesterday.
**Significant use of information other than polls.
***It's really 137.5-117-76.5-6-1 since there's a tie in Davenport. Pierre Martin has clarified that the Liberal percentage is slightly higher in Davenport; the Liberal number above for Le calcul électoral has been updated.

Also, the Globe's election model provides similar probabilities as I gave here.

Average (may not add up due to rounding):
150-115-67-  6-1-0 (all 11 projections)
143-117-71-  6-1-0 (9 Liberal minority projections)

The first thing to notice is that two models are projecting a Liberal majority. But both of them are quite puzzling: they only have the Liberals at 37-38%! I'm almost certain that if these models are right and a Liberal majority occurs, it would be due to offsetting mistakes: bad vote projection (too low for the Liberals) and bad model (too many seats for Liberals for a given vote projection). The CVM model is also an outlier in predicting that Elizabeth May will lose her seat, while Teddy and Politics is the only one forecasting a seat for Strength and Democracy. The Signal also looks weird: it is projecting a much bigger Liberal seat count than me on similar popular vote. My sense is that 160 seats is plausible for the Liberals, but seems quite unlikely with less than 37% popular support.

The other eight more "mainstream" projections are all within very tight ranges for the major parties:
LIB 137-149
CON 105-120 (115-120 excluding David Akin)
NDP 66-81

A few observations about comparing these eight projections:

- The divergence between proportional and uniform swing models for the Liberals and Conservatives has mostly disappeared. This is because, when a party (LPC) starts very low and starts getting competitive, proportional swing concentrates the rise in support in ridings where that party has the best chances of winning. However, if that party increases further, the increase in support in marginal ridings becomes similar in the two models. The latter is what happened with the Liberals in the past week. (Theoretically, if the party increases even more and becomes very far ahead of the other parties, uniform swing would give it more seats.)

- The divergence is instead showing up for the NDP. Excluding my model, the three uniform swing models have the NDP at 75-79 seats, while the two proportional swing models having incorporated the latest data have the NDP at 66-68 seats. This is due to the NDP decrease in Québec: it is now only holding on to relatively good seats, and proportional swing makes the drop in those seats bigger than uniform swing.

- So why is my uniform swing model more like the proportional swing models for the NDP? The answer is found in the popular vote: I have the lowest NDP popular vote of all projectors. This is due to two factors:
(i) I applied a mild change to some polls from earlier this week in order to reflect the change in voting intention since then; this cost the NDP a few tenths; and
(ii) the pro-CPC turnout adjustment.

- I also have a relatively high CPC popular vote, obviously due to the turnout adjustment. Too Close to Call also has a turnout adjustment, but it is smaller than mine; on the other hand, that model did not apply the change described in (i) above. These two differences appear to cancel out. The Signal also has a similar CPC vote, presumably because it missed some late polls.

- I have a relatively high LPC popular vote despite the turnout adjustment because of the change described in (i) above. Note that without the turnout adjustment, my projection of 150 seats (on 38.3%) for the Liberals is higher than all non-outliers.

- Finally, the Bloc seat count is incredibly hard to pin down - projections range from 1 to 11... Honestly, for the Bloc, it felt like throwing a dart with a blindfold since no pollster has come out with a regional breakdown of Québec since the NDP's plunge there.

Projected Winner by Riding

Click here for a summary of the projection. Click here for the complete trends since early September.

I'm a little too tired to do the maps (I don't have an automatic system set up), so I'll simply list the winner in each of the 166 ridings decided by under 12%. (The rest is presumably obvious, though feel free to ask; I do list ridings decided by more than 12% if there is only one such riding for that party in the area.)

I expect around 60 ridings to be incorrectly called, for an accuracy of 80-85%. Below 80% would be disappointing, and below 75% would be a bad night. Above 85% would be good, and above 90% is very unlikely unless the aggregate projection is nearly on the dot. Here is how other projectors and I did in 2011 - success rates hovered around 80%.

*89 ridings decided by 4-12% (10-33% chance of being wrong - potentially more if three-way race)
**77 ridings decided by less than 4% (more than 33% chance of being wrong)
Note that the 172 other ridings still have an up to 10% chance of being wrong - so there will very probably be some mistakes among them.
(The model actually gives 62 ridings decided by less than 4% and 96 ridings decided by 4-12%, but I upgraded the uncertainty in some cases in the list below, mostly due to riding polls showing closer-than-expected races.)

BC (Vancouver Island)
NDP (4): Cowichan--Malahat--Langford**, Nanaimo--Ladysmith*, Victoria*, Esquimalt--Saanich--Sooke
CON (2): Courtenay--Alberni**, North Island--Powell River**
GRN (1): Saanich--Gulf Islands

BC (Lower Mainland)
CON (11): Burnaby North--Seymour**, Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam**, South Surrey--White Rock**, Steveston--Richmond East**, Richmond Centre*, 6 others
LIB (10): Delta**, Fleetwood--Port Kells**, Surrey Centre*, Vancouver Granville*, Vancouver South*, West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country*, 4 others
NDP (5): Burnaby South*, Port Moody--Coquitlam*, Vancouver Kingsway*, 2 others

BC (Interior and North)
CON (7): Cariboo--Prince George**, Kootenay--Columbia**, Central Okanagan--Similkameen--Nicola*, Kamloops--Thompson--Cariboo*, North Okanagan--Shuswap*, 2 others
NDP (2): South Okanagan--West Kootenay**, Skeena--Bulkley Valley

Alberta
CON (32): Calgary Centre**, Calgary Skyview**, Edmonton Griesbach**, Edmonton Mill Woods**, Edmonton Centre*, 27 others
LIB (1): Calgary Confederation**
NDP (1): Edmonton Strathcona

Saskatchewan
CON (10): Saskatoon--Grasswood**, Saskatoon--University**, Regina--Qu'Appelle*, 7 others
NDP (3): Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River**, Regina--Lewvan**, Saskatoon West**
LIB (1): Regina--Wascana

Manitoba
CON (7): Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia--Headingley*, 6 others
LIB (4)
NDP (3): Churchill--Keewatinook Aski**, Elmwood--Transcona**, Winnipeg Centre*

Northern Ontario
NDP (5): Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing*, Sudbury*, Thunder Bay--Superior North*, Timmins--James Bay*, Nickel Belt
LIB (3): Thunder Bay--Rainy River**, Sault Ste. Marie**, Nipissing--Timiskaming
CON (3): Kenora**, Huron--Bruce*, Parry Sound--Muskoka

City of Toronto
LIB (23): York Centre**, Beaches--East York*, Eglinton--Lawrence*, Parkdale--High Park*, Spadina--Fort York*, University--Rosedale*, 17 others
NDP (2): Davenport**, Toronto--Danforth

Toronto CMA outside of City of Toronto (this is a bit smaller than the 905)
LIB (23): King--Vaughan**, Newmarket--Aurora**, Oakville North--Burlington**, Brampton Centre*, Brampton North*, Oakville*, Aurora--Oak Ridges--Richmond Hill*, Vaughan--Woodbridge*, 15 others
CON (5): Milton**, Thornhill*, 3 others

Rest of Ontario
CON (28): Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound**, Kitchener South--Hespeler**, Niagara Falls**, Northumberland--Peterborough South**, Simcoe--Grey**, Simcoe North**, Barrie--Springwater--Oro-Medonte*, Cambridge*, Carleton*, Chatham-Kent--Leamington*, Durham*, Essex*, Flamborough--Glanbrook*, Hastings--Lennox and Addington*, Lambton--Kent--Middlesex*, Lanark--Frontenac--Kingston*, Oshawa*, Perth--Wellington*, Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke*, Sarnia--Lambton*, 8 others
LIB (22): Bay of Quinte**, Brantford--Brant**, Burlington**, Kitchener--Conestoga**, Niagara Centre**, St. Catharines**, Haldimand--Norfolk*, Kanata-Carleton*, Nepean*, 13 others
NDP (7): Hamilton East--Stoney Creek**, Hamilton Mountain**, Ottawa Centre**, London--Fanshawe*, Windsor--Tecumseh*, 2 others

Island of Montréal
LIB (13): LaSalle--Émard--Verdun*, 12 others
NDP (4): Hochelaga**, La Pointe-de-l'Île**, Outremont**, Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie*
BQ (1): Laurier--Sainte-Marie**

Montréal CMA off the Island of Montréal
NDP (12): Longueuil--Charles-LeMoyne**, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin**, La Prairie*, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles*, Mirabel*, Châteauguay--Lacolle*, Thérèse-De Blainville*, Longueuil--Saint-Hubert*, Montcalm*, Terrebonne*, Repentigny*, Rivière-du-Nord
LIB (6): Montarville**, Vaudreuil--Soulanges**, Laval--Les Îles*, Vimy*, 2 others
BQ (2): Beloeil--Chambly**, Pierre-Boucher--Les Patriotes--Verchères**

Quebec City CMA
CON (6): Beauport--Limoilou**, Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles*, Portneuf--Jacques-Cartier*, 3 others
LIB (2): Louis-Hébert**, Québec**
BQ (1): Beauport--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île d'Orléans--Charlevoix**

Rest of Québec
NDP (15): Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik--Eeyou**, Berthier--Maskinongé**, Joliette**, Laurentides--Labelle**, Manicouagan**, Abitibi--Témiscamingue*, Chicoutimi--Le Fjord*, Drummond*, Hull--Aylmer*, Jonquière*, Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot*, Saint-Jean*, Shefford*, Trois-Rivières*, Gatineau
BQ (6): Avignon--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia**, Compton--Stanstead**, Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques**, Salaberry--Suroît**, Bécancour--Nicolet--Saurel*, Sherbrooke*
LIB (5): Argenteuil--La Petite-Nation**, Gaspésie--Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine**, Saint-Maurice--Champlain**, Brome--Missisquoi*, Pontiac*
CON (5)

New Brunswick
LIB (6): Saint John--Rothesay**, Miramichi--Grand Lake*, 4 others
CON (3): Fundy Royal*, New Brunswick Southwest*, Tobique--Mactaquac*
NDP (1): Acadie--Bathurst

Nova Scotia
LIB (10): Central Nova*, Halifax*, 8 others
NDP (1): Sackville--Preston--Chezzetcook*

Prince Edward Island
LIB (4): Egmont*, 3 others

Newfoundland and Labrador
LIB (6): St. John's South--Mount Pearl*, 5 others
NDP (1): St. John's East

Territories
LIB (3): Northwest Territories**, Nunavut**, Yukon

2015 Federal Election, Final Projection: LIBERAL MINORITY

Canadian Election Watch's final projection for the 2015 federal election is as follows:

LIB - 142 (37.3%)
CON - 119 (32.4%)
NDP - 66 (20.1%)
BQ - 10 (4.9%)
GRN - 1 (4.3%)

In order to take into account the movement observed in the past few days toward the Liberals, conservative modifications were made to some polls taken earlier in the week based on the evolution of the Nanos and EKOS tracking polls. Moreover, the turnout adjustment used throughout the campaign was reduced by around one fifth outside of Québec in order to take into account movement from the CPC to the LPC among seniors. Finally, a riding-by-riding examination of the projection resulted in some seats being moved (mostly in Québec); the net effect of this was no more than 2 seats for any party.

(Update: I changed some probabilities below since a larger than usual number of ridings are tight.)

This projection implies a Liberal seat plurality short of a majority with probability around 70-75% 65%. The probability of a Conservative seat plurality is around 20-25% 25%. Either of these scenarios would likely result in a Liberal minority government. There is a roughly 5% 10% chance of a Liberal majority government. The probability of a Conservative majority and of an NDP seat plurality are negligible. (Please note that these probabilities are not derived from simulations, as would be ideal. They are instead estimated using the method outlined here.)

If you believe that polls accurately sample the electorate, you should instead refer to the projection below, which does not include a turnout adjustment:

LIB - 150 (38.3%)
CON - 111 (30.9%)
NDP - 65 (20.6%)
BQ - 11 (4.9%)
GRN - 1 (4.6%)

Such numbers imply a Liberal seat plurality short of a majority with probability around 75% 65-70%. A Conservative seat plurality and a Liberal majority have a 10-15% roughly 15% and 15-20% chance of occurring, respectively.

Therefore, depending on whether one believes in the turnout adjustment, the probability of a Liberal win is around either 75-80% or 85-90% 75% or 85%. Thus, although the Liberals are clear favourites, there is a significant chance of a slim Conservative plurality. Similarly, a Liberal majority cannot be ruled out.

The main (i.e. adjusted) projection by region is as follows:

Atlantic Canada
LIB - 26 (53.5%)
CON - 3 (21.1%)
NDP - 3 (20.2%)
GRN - 0 (4.2%)

Québec
NDP - 31 (26.3%)
LIB - 26 (30.1%)
CON - 11 (20.5%)
BQ - 10 (19.4%)
GRN - 0 (2.6%)

Ontario
LIB - 71 (44.3%)
CON - 36 (34.3%)
NDP - 14 (16.7%)
GRN - 0 (3.7%)

Manitoba/Saskatchewan
CON - 17 (41.7%)
LIB - 5 (32.6%)
NDP - 6 (20.7%)
GRN - 0 (4.1%)

Alberta
CON - 32 (56.3%)
LIB - 1 (24.4%)
NDP - 1 (15.0%)
GRN - 0 (3.3%)

British Columbia
CON - 20 (32.1%)
NDP - 11 (25.1%)
LIB - 10 (32.8%)
GRN - 1 (8.9%)

Territories
LIB - 3

As you can see, the Liberals are projected to win the popular vote in Québec, but due to the concentration of their vote, they are projected to win fewer seats than the NDP. It should be noted, however, that Québec is replete with three-way (and some four-way) races, so the seat projection in Québec is less reliable than usual.

The Liberals are also projected to be in a tight contest with the Conservatives for winning the BC popular vote. However, they are favoured in only half as many seats as the Tories.

Today's posting schedule is roughly as follows:
- Overnight: Projected winner in each riding
- Day: Guide to election night
- Day (if time allows): Roundup and comparison of projections around the web
- Around 9:00-9:15pm ET: Updated projection based on Atlantic results

Model Performance: Comparison with Other Projections

Updated to reflect change of lead in Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup

This post will compare the accuracy of my final projection with that of others that were freely available during the campaign. For a region-by-region analysis of how my projection fared, click here. Once again, the websites mentioned here are linked through the left bar.

Here are the eight final projections that were based on an average of polls (C-N-L-B-G-I):
148-100-44-14-1-1 (The Mace)
152- 94-46-15-0-1 (Canadian Election Watch)
142-114-39-12-0-1 (Riding by Riding)
151- 91-47-18-0-1 (Calgary Grit)
144- 98-51-15-0-0 (LISPOP)
155- 86-47-20-0-0 (democraticSPACE)
143- 93-58-14-0-0 (Too Close to Call)
143- 78-60-27-0-0 (ThreeHundredEight.com)

First, I would like to congratulate democraticSPACE for being the only model projecting a Conservative majority. On that front, I fared honourably by having the second highest Conservative seat count. Four websites estimated the probability of a Conservative majority. Obviously, democraticSPACE had the highest, right around 50%. Canadian Election Watch said it would occur with a 45% chance, while Calgary Grit had 28%, and The Mace, 13%.

Although the Conservative seat count was the most politically relevant figure to project, to get a sense of the overall quality of a projection, one needs to look at the other numbers as well. Below is half of the total deviation of each of the above eight projections. (This is the sum of the absolute value of the difference between the projected and the actual result for each of the parties and independents. It is divided by 2 because, by definition, it is always even.)

21 (The Mace)
24 (Canadian Election Watch)
25 (Riding by Riding)
28 (Calgary Grit)
28 (LISPOP)
29 (democraticSPACE)
34 (Too Close to Call)
49 (ThreeHundredEight.com)

Once again, Canadian Election Watch comes in a strong second, this time behind The Mace. democraticSPACE actually did not do too well, placing sixth. Interestingly, the two prognosticators with newspaper columns fared worst... (Of course, Éric and Bryan still have great websites with interesting content.)

If you average the above two measures of success (Conservative seat count and half total deviation), Canadian Election Watch comes in first! I'm not going to use this to declare victory, but I think there's a strong case for saying that I gave at least as accurate a portrayal of the overall situation as any other projection.

I also note that EKOS, which projected 138-113-41-15-1, has a half total deviation of 28, in the same ballpark as the projections above based on multiple polls. Update: Steven Britton also projected on the EKOS poll alone, and got 150-116-37-5, which has a half total deviation of 17, better than the above projections. However, his official call, below, was less accurate.

Now, it is true that seat projections based on polls did not do too well due to poll inaccuracy. Would relying on intuition and other information have been better? To look at that, I compiled the following relatively better publicized projections that were obtained via other methods:

151-86-45-24-1-1 (Andrew Coyne)
156-76-46-30-0-0 (Steven Britton)
146-83-55-22-1-1 (Dan Arnold, aka Calgary Grit)
152-71-52-31-0-2 (Bernard von Schulmann, aka BC Iconoclast, April 25)
146-65-63-33-0-1 (Election Prediction Project)
156-46-60-46-0-1 (Glen McGregor, April 29)

Two of these called for a bare Conservative majority, but in both cases, the NDP was very low, and the Bloc was absurdly high. The half deviations were as follows:

32 (Andrew Coyne)
38 (Steven Britton)
40 (Dan Arnold, aka Calgary Grit)
47 (Bernard von Schulmann, aka BC Iconoclast, April 25)
59 (Election Prediction Project)
69 (Glen McGregor)

The striking thing here is that everyone did worse than most projections based on polling averages. Thus, while relying on polls is far from perfect, it still gives us a better idea of what's going on than letting "gut" and "instinct" cloud one's judgment. Obviously, some prognosticators probably did predict 166 Tory seats (one of the commenters here was close, with 170). However, the above numbers suggest that in most cases, taking poll numbers seriously, even when they're significantly off, is still helpful.

What about riding-by-riding predictions? As far as I know, 7 of the above projectors bothered making a call for each of the 308 races (democraticSPACE also did so for most of them, but did not call some close races). Here is the number correct for each:

259 (Canadian Election Watch)
255 (Riding by Riding)
250 (-1?) (Steven Britton)
242 (Too Close to Call)
234 (ThreeHundredEight.com)
234 (Election Prediction Project)
217 (Glen McGregor)

Once again, Canadian Election Watch performs strongly, this time coming out on top. I'm particularly proud of my projections for BC, where I registered 34/36. The two predictions that relied the least on polls were the worst. In fact, the four most widely known ones came out at the bottom. So while everyone, myself included, did pretty poorly, we still did better than the media will give us credit for.

So where does this leave us? As I've emphasized above, while these results are far from satisfying for election projectors, they still point to the value of relying on the hard data provided by imperfect polls. None of the 7 "soft" (i.e. not based on a numerical model) projections had the Bloc below 22 seats, while 5 of the 8 projections using models had it at 15 or fewer.

As for myself, I'm obviously not thrilled about the absolute result, but very satisfied about how I fared compared to others. Moreover, I'm glad that some of the major issues emphasized on this blog and little discussed elsewhere, such as massive Conservative gains the GTA area, the efficiency of the NDP surge in Québec and the ballot box penalty for the Bloc, all came to pass.

It was my goal to provide you with the most accurate and up-to-date coverage of voter intentions and seat implications for the 41st General Election, and I believe that in many ways, I have succeeded. I hope that you agree, and that you will check back sporadically over the next few years for more political coverage and insights. In fact, please check back over the next few days: I will be analyzing the possible implications of these results as I digest them.

Model Performance: Region by Region

Updated to reflect change of lead in Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup

The election is over, and we have a Conservative majority. In this post, I will discuss where the projection went wrong, and why. A major reason for most projectors' failure to foresee a Conservative majority is that outside Québec, the polls underestimated Tory support by at least 5% in every single region. This performance is frankly embarrassing. My vote share adjustment allowed me to be closer to the mark by bumping the Tory vote estimate by 1-2%, but that wasn't nearly enough.

In a subsequent post, I will compare my final projection to those of other models using poll averages, as well as to predictions made using other methods. It turns out that although projections based on polling averages didn't fare well, they did better than those based on other methodologies. Moreover, among projections based on polling averages, Canadian Election Watch performed very well.

Atlantic Canada (Projected|Actual)
CON - 12|14 ; 32%|38%
LIB - 12|12 ; 28%|29%
NDP - 8|6 ; 34%|30%

Here, we can see that the polls overestimated the NDP vote share, and underestimated the Conservative one. My vote share adjustment from the NDP to the Tories was not enough to compensate for the bias. Had the actual vote shares been known, the model would have been exact. (There would still have been ridings called incorrectly, but overall numbers would have been correct.) As I had predicted, a 14+ seat performance in Atlantic Canada would point to a Conservative majority.

Québec
NDP - 44|59 ; 40%|43%
LIB - 7|7 ; 15%|14%
CON - 8|5 ; 17%|17%
BQ - 15|4 ; 25%|23%
IND - 1|0

The polls in Québec were mostly on the mark. They were a little low for the NDP and the Conservatives, and a bit high for the Bloc. My vote share adjustment appropriately compensated for the bias against the Tories, reduced the Bloc problem, but exacerbated the NDP inaccuracy. Unlike in Atlantic Canada, the projected result would have differed from the actual one even if the actual vote shares had been known: the Bloc would still have been given around 10 seats.

Would simply applying a uniform swing, without taking riding polls and potential swing variability into account, performed better? Well, yes and no: as I said previously, uniform swing on polling numbers would have given the Bloc just 5 seats, which would have been very prescient. However, uniform swing on the actual results would have left the Bloc with just one seat, a significant underestimate. Thus, taking other factors into account and increasing the Bloc's predicted count was correct - however, it should not have been done to the extent that everyone, including myself, did.

If you've been reading this blog, you know that I've been fighting against two serious misconceptions of the Bloc vote, namely that it turns out well and that it is efficiently distributed. In fact, Bloc voters, as usual, turned out less than polls suggested, and the Bloc vote was shockingly inefficiently distributed - even much more than I had thought. Indeed, most of the NDP victories were not tight as the model suggested: the Bloc didn't even come close except in a handful of cases. Many political commentators outside Québec either don't know basic electoral facts about Québec (sovereigntists almost always underperform polls) and/or can't process numbers correctly (how can the NDP win only 5-7 seats with 41% in the polls?).

Ontario
CON - 62|73; 40%|44%
NDP - 22|22; 27%|26%
LIB - 22|11; 26%|25%

Like in Atlantic Canada, the polls failed in Ontario. While the former can be attributed to small sample size, the latter is somewhat embarrassing for the polling industry. The actual result was well outside the margin of error of the last polls from Forum, EKOS and Léger, and it was right on the upper edge for Angus Reid. Other pollsters were probably saved by their small sample size, which implied wider confidence intervals: no pollster came within 3% of the Conservative tally in Ontario. My vote share adjustment only mitigated the problem by a tiny bit.

On actual results, the model with the GTA adjustment would have done quite well: 72-20-14. It would have been farther off without the GTA adjustment, which on actual results, shifted 3 net seats from the Liberals to the Conservatives. This adjustment has been heavily emphasized on this blog, while it was barely mentioned elsewhere.

Manitoba/Saskatchewan
CON - 21|24 - 50%|55%
NDP - 5|2 - 29%|29%
LIB - 2|2 - 15%|13%

Once again, the pollsters severely underestimated the Tory vote, and my pro-Conservative vote share adjustment was not nearly big enough. On actual popular vote, the projected count would have been closer, at 23-4-1.

Alberta
CON - 27|27 - 63%|67%
NDP - 1|1 - 18%|17%

The projection was, unsurprisingly, correct in Alberta, though the pollsters underestimated the Conservative vote here as well.

British Columbia
CON - 21|21 - 41%|46%
NDP - 13|12 - 33%|33%
LIB - 2|2 - 16%|13%
GRN - 0|1 - 8%|8%

Once again, the Tories did much better than predicted. Here, however, the polling inaccuracy did not significantly impact my projection. On the actual provincial split, the model would have given 22-12-2, though I might have made it 23-11-2 via a risk adjustment.

Overall
CON - 152|166 - 37.3%|39.6%
NDP - 94|103 - 30.5%|30.6%
LIB - 46|34 - 20.0%|18.9%
BQ - 15|4 - 6.3%|6.0%
GRN - 0|1 - 4.9%|3.9%
IND - 1|0

Overall, the polls underestimated the Conservative vote by 3.7% - and, I repeat, that was over 5% everywhere outside Québec. They would have been even worse had they accounted for the fact that turnout is significantly lower in Alberta than elsewhere. My vote share adjustment shrank the gap to 2.3%.

On actual vote splits, I would have projected 166-167 Conservative seats - bang on! The Liberal count would have been 36, which is very close as well. The Bloc would still have been overestimated (though by less), and the NDP would still have been underestimated because although I kept repeating that the NDP vote is efficient in Québec, even I did not grasp the full extent of it. Outside Québec, the projected count would have come within 3 seats of the actual count for all parties. Based on these observations, I believe that the model was, in fact, very solid.

As for the riding-by-riding calls, I was correct in 259 cases out of 308 = 84.1%. (Etobicoke Centre and Westmount--Ville-Marie flipped late yesterday, both away from the projected winner. I am, however, very pleased at the change in my childhood riding. Update: Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup also flipped away from the projection.) This is worse than how such a model usually performs - you would have expected about 280 correct calls - but obviously that was caused by the inaccurate polls and the great uncertainty in Québec.

Final Projection: Conservative Minority

Canadian Election Watch's final projection was posted on the left sidebar around 6:45am EDT, and it calls for a strong Conservative minority government, with the NDP as the Official Opposition. I encourage you to visualize the projection with these maps (Update: now posted). The expected national seat count and vote share for each main party are as follows:

152 seats, 37.3% for the Conservative Party of Canada
94 seats, 30.5% for the New Democratic Party of Canada
46 seats, 20.0% for the Liberal Party of Canada
15 seats, 6.3% for the Bloc Québécois
0 seats, 4.9% for the Green Party of Canada
1 seat held by an Independent

Because the Independent, André Arthur, normally supports the Conservatives, this projection implies that the Tories are just 2 seats short of a working majority. Here are some unscientific estimated probabilities of various events based on the record of similar models in past elections (not that the projection model is totally rigorous, but the probabilities are even more ad hoc):

Conservative working majority: 45%
New Democratic win (most seats): 2%
Liberal Official Opposition: 1%

Of course, if the Tories actually finish only two seats short, they could still form a majority if they manage to convince MPs from the Liberal party to cross the floor.

As a reminder, the projection model is a uniform swing model (dividing Canada into six regions) adjusted for riding polls and by-elections (such as Elizabeth May running in Central Nova last time). Additionally, the following tweaks are made:

- Different swings are applied to the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area and other areas in Ontario, based on EKOS data.
- The Conservative polling averages are slightly increased, and the Bloc's, Greens' and NDP's slightly decreased, as is consistent with past history and commitment measures. (The magnitude of these adjustments, around 0.5-1.5% in each case, is admittedly ad hoc.)

Both of these changes favour the Conservatives by a few seats, and account for most of the difference in the Conservative seat count between this projection and that of some other websites using a similar methodology.

At this point, it is important to remember that the idea behind a uniform swing model is that mistakes on one side and the other tend to cancel out. Thus, this model is not designed to correctly predict the winner is every riding. Rather, it is supposed to give a good idea of the expected total count for each party. As a result, the riding-specific projections should be considered unreliable (Atlantic, Québec, Ontario, West). But, hey, they're fun, and Lawrence Cannon, Peter MacKay and Gilles Duceppe are all projected to be swept away by the orange wave (though all these races are very tight, so none of the three may come to pass).

This final projection is a little different from the ones made throughout the campaign because it has an extra ingredient. Rather than just projecting as the winner whoever the model points to and adding up the ridings, I also took a look at how many close races each party is projected to win or lose. I then manually adjusted the outcome in certain ridings in order to come up with an aggregate projection with roughly equal upside and downside risks.

For example, the Bloc Québécois would have won only 5 seats on a uniform swing model. Because my model also includes riding polls and the regional effects they suggest, it had the Bloc winning 13 seats. However, the Bloc was still losing more close races than it was winning, so I shifted two additional seats to the Bloc from the NDP. The other beneficiaries of this adjustment are the Liberals, who get one seat from the NDP in Québec and one seat from the Conservatives in Ontario.

Furthermore, I took another look at Portneuf--Jacques-Cartier, which is handled outside the model due to the presence of an Independent incumbent. I decided to move that seat back into André Arthur's fold, though of course it is a tossup.

Had the above changes not been made, the final projection would have been 153 C, 98 N, 44 L, 13 B. This is what appears on the campaign trends graph (Update: now posted) in order to maintain consistency.

Later today, I will post a more detailed analysis of the projection, which could also serve as a quick (and incomplete) guide to election night.

Final Projection: Maps

Here are the maps for the projection. The one for Montréal is the most striking.

Final Projection: Campaign Trends

Here is the complete trend graph for this campaign. As previously explained, the discontinuity is due to a change in methodology, so the continuous parts of the lines reflect actual variations in the parties' fortunes. Also, as indicated in the main post about the final projection, the numbers plotted as the final point of each line differ from the final projection, which adds a step in the data crunching.

We can see that the Conservatives started the campaign barely in majority territory, but fell out of it due to a strong start by Ignatieff. (Yes, the Grits were actually doing well in the first week. Weird, huh?) For most of the campaign thereafter, they were teetering between a minority and a majority (if you mentally shift the Tory line before the discontinuity up). Throughout the NDP rise, the Conservatives were quite stable, losing just a handful of seats, as I had predicted. This lands them just outside majority territory in the final projection.

The NDP was in the low 30s for the first 60% of the campaign. It was a few points higher in Québec than in 2008, but that wasn't enough for any seat gains. In the rest of Canada, the NDP was actually lower than its 2008 results through the first half of the campaign! As the NDP wave hit Québec, its projected seat count started increasing at a moderate pace until it got to around 50, just 6 days ago. Then it hit the zone where a big chunk of Québec seats swing almost in unison, and the NDP seat count skyrocketed. The rest is history.

It's striking how the Liberal and the Bloc lines are almost parallel, though in the first half of the campaign, the Grits were either on the rise or flat, while the Bloc was already trending downward. While Gilles Duceppe's drop can be at least partly attributed to an uninspired and ill-conceived campaign, Ignatieff didn't do too bad of a job. Unfortunately for him, Jack Layton was much better, and enthusiasm for the NDP crowded out the Liberals.

Final Projection: Seats Changing Hands, West

These are seats changing hands relative to the 2008 General Election, ignoring any intervening by-elections.

Manitoba/Saskatchewan
CON 21 (-1), 50%
NDP 5 (+1), 29%
LIB 2 (=), 15%
Conservative to NDP: Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar

Alberta
CON 27 (=), 63%
NDP 1 (=), 18%

British Columbia
CON 21 (-1), 41%
NDP 13 (+4), 33%
LIB 2 (-3), 16%
Liberal to Conservative: Vancouver South
Liberal to NDP: Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Newton--North Delta
Conservative to NDP: Surrey North, Vancouver Island North

Final Projection: Seats Changing Hands, Ontario

These are seats changing hands relative to the 2008 General Election, ignoring any intervening by-elections.

CON 62 (+11), 40%
NDP 22 (+5), 27%
LIB 22 (-16), 26%

Liberal to Conservative (12)
Ajax--Pickering
Bramalea--Gore--Malton
Brampton--Springdale
Brampton West
Don Valley West
Eglinton--Lawrence
Kingston and the Islands
Mississauga South
Mississauga--Streetsville
Richmond Hill
Vaughan
York Centre

Liberal to NDP (4)
Beaches--East York
Davenport
Guelph
Parkdale--High Park

Conservative to NDP (1)
Oshawa

Final Projection: Seats Changing Hands, Québec

These are seats changing hands relative to the 2008 General Election, ignoring any intervening by-elections.

NDP 44 (+43), 40%
BQ 15 (-34), 25%
CON 8 (-2), 17%
LIB 7 (-7), 15%
IND 1 (=)

Liberal to NDP (7)
Brossard--La Prairie
Honoré-Mercier
Hull--Aylmer
LaSalle--Émard
Laval--Les Îles
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine
Westmount--Ville-Marie

Conservative to NDP (3)
Beauport--Limoilou
Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles
Pontiac

Bloc to Conservative (1)
Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup

Bloc to NDP (33)
All remaining ridings, EXCEPT:
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour
Berthier--Maskinongé
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord
Gaspésie--Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia
Joliette
Laurentides--Labelle
Manicouagan
Montcalm
Montmorency--Charlevoix--Haute-Côte-Nord
Québec
Repentigny
Richmond--Arthabaska
Rivière-du-Nord
Sherbrooke

Final Projection: Seats Changing Hands, Atlantic Canada

These are seats changing hands relative to the 2008 General Election, ignoring any intervening by-elections.

CON 12 (+2), 32%
LIB 12 (-5), 28%
NDP 8 (+4), 34%

Newfoundland and Labrador
Liberal to Conservative: Avalon
Liberal to NDP: St. John's South--Mount Pearl

Prince Edward Island
Liberal to Conservative: Malpeque

Nova Scotia
Liberal to NDP: Dartmouth--Cole Harbour
Conservative to NDP: Central Nova, South Shore--St. Margaret's
Independent to Conservative: Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley

New Brunswick
Liberal to Conservative: Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe