Now that I've hopefully finished making tweaks and refinements to the model, it's time to look at a number of "what would it take" scenarios. Below are some examples of national support levels that make the estimated expected seats (the numbers in the blog's right column) reach certain benchmarks.
Update Aug. 14: In light of today's news, I've added an alternative Conservative majority scenario primarily through a Liberal fall (rather than a Tory rise).
For each of these, I assume uniform national swing from the current projection: that is, changes in a party's support from current levels are the same in every region of the country. Two important caveats:
1. Regional support patterns can very well change during the campaign - we all remember Quebec swinging wildly the last two times - in which case these numbers can also change significantly.
2. The further down in the post you get, the larger the shifts involved, which means that those are even less reliable.
Therefore, please take everything with a grain of salt... and enjoy!
Tie for first place
CON 36.2% (148.3 seats)
LIB 32.4% (148.3)
NDP 14.0% (24.2)
BQ 4.1% (12.0)
GRN 10.0% (4.0)
The model suggests that if current patterns of regional support hold, the Tories need to win the popular vote by more than 3% just to get a tie.
Liberal majority
LIB 35.1% (170.0)
CON 34.8% (131.5)
NDP 13.1% (21.5)
BQ 4.1% (9.9)
GRN 9.5% (4.1)
The model suggests that the Liberals can get a majority with not much more than 35% support and a tiny popular vote win. In fact, as I mentioned on Twitter a few days ago, a majority with a popular vote loss is possible.
Conservative majority (mainly through Tory rise)
CON 39.1% (170.0)
LIB 31.4% (132.5)
NDP 13.1% (19.9)
BQ 3.9% (10.8)
GRN 9.2% (3.8)
The silver lining for the Conservatives is that a majority is not out of reach. Indeed, if they return to their 2011 level (39.6%), they would likely get a majority, despite their inefficient vote this time.
Conservative majority (mainly through Liberal fall)
CON 37.3% (170.0)
LIB 27.7% (112.4)
NDP 16.1% (32.8)
BQ 4.4% (17.4)
GRN 11.4% (4.2)
If the Liberals weaken significantly, the Tories' majority threshold goes down, and the NDP gets to maintain its total of 28 seats outside Quebec (though with losses in Western Canada and gains in Eastern Canada). The Bloc also benefits.
NDP loses official party status
CON 36.7% (143.4)
LIB 35.4% (166.8)
NDP 8.7% (11.0)
BQ 4.4% (11.0)
GRN 11.7% (4.7)
The model thinks the NDP loses official party status when its support drops below roughly 9%. Fortunately for the NDP, even their worst polls still give them around 10% support, while their best ones give them in the mid-to-high teens. The NDP cratering would likely help the Liberals: notice how close they are to a majority in this scenario while losing the popular vote by over 1%.
Greens gain official party status
CON 33.1% (145.9)
LIB 29.5% (148.6)
NDP 10.7% (19.2)
GRN 19.5% (12.0)
BQ 3.4% (11.0)
The model is not well-suited to deal with this scenario, so take this with a big scoop of salt! In particular, with strategic voting and smart targeting, the Greens could reach 12 seats with a lot less than 19.5%. Presumably, if Green support reaches the mid-teens, we'll get lots of riding polls in districts that look the most promising to them - and incorporating those polls into the model would correct things.
That said, it can definitely happen for a third party's vote to be much more inefficient when it's on the way up (like the Green vote) than when it's well established (like the NDP vote) because voting habits adjust. For example, in the 1983 UK General Election, the Lib Dems surged, and it took them 25.4% (!) national support to get just 23 of 650 seats (which happens to be almost exactly the same proportion as 12 of 338). So it's not crazy to think that it could take the Greens 20% to get to the same place. Then, as the voters got used to the Lib Dems and could see where they're strong, they got twice as many seats (46 of 659) in the 1997 UK General Election on 2/3 of the vote share (16.8%) - somewhat similar to the NDP situation now.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Estimates for Expected Number of Seats
Update Aug. 15: I have refined things (see underlined parts below), but this is still an approximate method.
As you can see, the projected numbers of seats, which are now provided in the right-hand column, now have one digit after the decimal point, and no longer match the numbers of seats projected ahead in the left-hand column. This is because I have decided to provide approximate expected numbers of seats, which should be less subject to "artificial" factors such as a party being projected barely ahead in a disproportionate number of seats. This change should make variations in the projection less puzzling: you won't see a party suddenly gain, say, 12 seats when it goes up by a point, but only 2 seats when it goes up by another point.
As you can see, the projected numbers of seats, which are now provided in the right-hand column, now have one digit after the decimal point, and no longer match the numbers of seats projected ahead in the left-hand column. This is because I have decided to provide approximate expected numbers of seats, which should be less subject to "artificial" factors such as a party being projected barely ahead in a disproportionate number of seats. This change should make variations in the projection less puzzling: you won't see a party suddenly gain, say, 12 seats when it goes up by a point, but only 2 seats when it goes up by another point.
How do I estimate expected seat counts, given that as I've said before, I don't want to get into doing simulations? Based on my estimates about polling and seat model inaccuracy, I've determined that the standard error in the gap between the top two parties is about 9-10%, for an election taking place around the time of the last poll. Then I simply look at how far apart the top two parties are, and assign them probabilities of winning the seat based on the normal distribution. For example, if party A is 9-10% (1 standard deviation) ahead of party B, then party A would be given an 84% chance of winning, while party B would be given a 16% chance of winning.
More specifically, I first calculate an (usually too low) estimate for the third party's chance of winning by multiplying the probability that it gets more votes than the first party with the probability that it gets more votes than the second party. (This is usually too low because the two events are usually positively correlated.) Then I apportion the remaining probability of winning between the top two parties proportionally to their probability of finishing ahead of the other.
More specifically, I first calculate an (usually too low) estimate for the third party's chance of winning by multiplying the probability that it gets more votes than the first party with the probability that it gets more votes than the second party. (This is usually too low because the two events are usually positively correlated.) Then I apportion the remaining probability of winning between the top two parties proportionally to their probability of finishing ahead of the other.
This is not an ideal method because it ignores underestimates third and ignores fourth parties. For most seats, this is not a problem, as only one or two parties have a significant chance of winning. However, if a party is involved in disproportionately many three- or four-way races as the party ranked third or fourth, that party will be slightly underestimated.
Teeny Tiny Projection Update
No new polls, but reading the news made me realize that there should be an adjustment for Howard Hampton (former ON NDP leader) not running again in Kenora. This swings the riding to a Liberal hold (LIB 31%, NDP 30%, CON 28%).
At the same time, I got rid of some rounding when modifying the 2015 provincial baselines to reflect such adjustments to riding-level 2015 baselines. That swings Québec back to the Liberals (but it's basically a tie either way).
Update Aug. 13: Ugh. I realized that when playing around with regional adjustments, I missed a row when I pasted the one I settled on in the end. That row is Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques, which should be marginally Liberal rather than NDP.
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 4)
LIB -157 158
CON - 142
NDP -22 21
BQ - 11
GRN - 5
IND - 1
If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.
The popular vote projections are not affected by these updates.
At the same time, I got rid of some rounding when modifying the 2015 provincial baselines to reflect such adjustments to riding-level 2015 baselines. That swings Québec back to the Liberals (but it's basically a tie either way).
Update Aug. 13: Ugh. I realized that when playing around with regional adjustments, I missed a row when I pasted the one I settled on in the end. That row is Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques, which should be marginally Liberal rather than NDP.
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 4)
LIB -
CON - 142
NDP -
BQ - 11
GRN - 5
IND - 1
If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.
The popular vote projections are not affected by these updates.
External Links
As you can see if you consult this blog using a computer, I have increased the width of the blog and added a second column to the right-hand side, which contains all external links. There were too many things in the left column, which impaired navigation.
I have categorized the pollsters into "main national," "main regional," and "other." The national/regional distinction is self-explanatory. The main/other distinction is based on a subjective assessment of a pollster's length of track record and frequency of voting intention polling.
I have also categorized my "competitors" into "main" and "other." Those in the "main" category must satisfy all three of the following criteria:
- be based on averaging most recent available polling (e.g. not just a specific firm's polls),
- have been active after the 2015 General Election, and
- provide an easy-to-find and (at least) basic description of the methodology used.
Please let me know if you find an active Canadian projection website that I've missed, or if an inactive one starts up again and should be upgraded.
As you can see by clicking on the 2019 Methodology label (and About this Blog label for earlier years), I make a significant effort to explain how my projection works. I believe that, of all the seat projections available online, I currently provide the most precise description of methodology and idiosyncratic adjustments. (It helps that my methodology is relatively simple, as I do not make use of demographic characteristics.) I don't hold other sites to the same standard. However, some do not describe their methodology at all, and are therefore relegated to the "Other" category, along with inactive projection sites (which will be removed if they remain inactive after the campaign starts).
I'll add that the inclusion of a projection site in the "main" category does NOT imply endorsement of its methodology - although most in that category have a pretty solid one. I may comment on the quality of other projections in the future, but that is not the purpose of this post. If you're curious about track record in 2011 and 2015, posts comparing performances can be found under the Final Projection label.
I have categorized the pollsters into "main national," "main regional," and "other." The national/regional distinction is self-explanatory. The main/other distinction is based on a subjective assessment of a pollster's length of track record and frequency of voting intention polling.
I have also categorized my "competitors" into "main" and "other." Those in the "main" category must satisfy all three of the following criteria:
- be based on averaging most recent available polling (e.g. not just a specific firm's polls),
- have been active after the 2015 General Election, and
- provide an easy-to-find and (at least) basic description of the methodology used.
Please let me know if you find an active Canadian projection website that I've missed, or if an inactive one starts up again and should be upgraded.
As you can see by clicking on the 2019 Methodology label (and About this Blog label for earlier years), I make a significant effort to explain how my projection works. I believe that, of all the seat projections available online, I currently provide the most precise description of methodology and idiosyncratic adjustments. (It helps that my methodology is relatively simple, as I do not make use of demographic characteristics.) I don't hold other sites to the same standard. However, some do not describe their methodology at all, and are therefore relegated to the "Other" category, along with inactive projection sites (which will be removed if they remain inactive after the campaign starts).
I'll add that the inclusion of a projection site in the "main" category does NOT imply endorsement of its methodology - although most in that category have a pretty solid one. I may comment on the quality of other projections in the future, but that is not the purpose of this post. If you're curious about track record in 2011 and 2015, posts comparing performances can be found under the Final Projection label.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Update to Model Parameters and Discussion of Poll Weighting
As explained in the methodological post on poll weighting, the new formula is one of the main improvements that I have made to the model for this election: it derives the weights from a statistical framework rather than basing them on arbitrary discount factors. After a month of data coming in (I include all national polls that include field dates after July 1), it has become apparent that the individual-pollster variance parameter of 0.0001 (1% standard deviation) is too low; I am changing it to 0.0002 to better fit the recent data.
(Update Aug. 11: I have also changed the pollster common variance from 0.0002 to 0.0006 based on the frequency and magnitude of misses in recent provincial elections. This will only affect the confidence intervals, and will be reflected the next time I give such intervals.)
This update should make projections slightly more stable by increasing the model's weariness of concentrating weight on any one pollster. It causes minor changes to the latest projection, which is now:
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 4)
(Update Aug. 11: I have also changed the pollster common variance from 0.0002 to 0.0006 based on the frequency and magnitude of misses in recent provincial elections. This will only affect the confidence intervals, and will be reflected the next time I give such intervals.)
This update should make projections slightly more stable by increasing the model's weariness of concentrating weight on any one pollster. It causes minor changes to the latest projection, which is now:
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 4)
LIB - 155 (33.3%)
CON - 143 (35.5%)
NDP - 23 (13.9%)
BQ - 11 (4.2%)
GRN - 5 (10.0%)
IND - 1 (Wilson-Raybould)
CON - 143 (35.5%)
NDP - 23 (13.9%)
BQ - 11 (4.2%)
GRN - 5 (10.0%)
IND - 1 (Wilson-Raybould)
If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.
- Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques now stays NDP.
- Québec now remains a Conservative pickup (with caveat).
- Richmond Hill now remains a Conservative pickup.
- Hamilton East--Stoney Creek is now an NDP pickup.
What I want to do now is to illustrate how the weighting formula is working. As I explained in the earlier post, negative weights on some polls can arise, and I gave a theoretical explanation. In practice, negative weights are playing an even greater role than I was expecting... and it makes perfect sense.
For a full list of included polls and a link to each of them, see previous Projection posts.
Consider the following:
- 17 national polls combining about 29,000 respondents have been fed into the model.
- The total weight on the three most recent polls, totaling under 20% of the total respondents, by Innovative, Mainstreet and Abacus, is 64%.
- The total weight assigned to each pollster is:
16% Mainstreet
16% Abacus
13% Innovative
11% Forum
9% EKOS
7% Léger
6% Angus Reid
6% Campaign Research
6% Nanos
5% Research Co.
5% Ipsos
As you can see, the formula achieves the dual objective of putting high weight on recent polls without giving any pollster undue influence. If you look more closely, you'll note that the three pollsters with the most recent polls (totaling 64% weight) have a combined weight of just 45%. This is achieved by assigning negative weight to those pollsters' older polls, and the sum of those negative weights is a significant -19%. If those pollsters did not have an older poll, then their newer poll would receive a lower weight, as there would be no way to correct for their pollster-specific bias.
- Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques now stays NDP.
- Québec now remains a Conservative pickup (with caveat).
- Richmond Hill now remains a Conservative pickup.
- Hamilton East--Stoney Creek is now an NDP pickup.
What I want to do now is to illustrate how the weighting formula is working. As I explained in the earlier post, negative weights on some polls can arise, and I gave a theoretical explanation. In practice, negative weights are playing an even greater role than I was expecting... and it makes perfect sense.
For a full list of included polls and a link to each of them, see previous Projection posts.
Consider the following:
- 17 national polls combining about 29,000 respondents have been fed into the model.
- The total weight on the three most recent polls, totaling under 20% of the total respondents, by Innovative, Mainstreet and Abacus, is 64%.
- The total weight assigned to each pollster is:
16% Mainstreet
16% Abacus
13% Innovative
11% Forum
9% EKOS
7% Léger
6% Angus Reid
6% Campaign Research
6% Nanos
5% Research Co.
5% Ipsos
As you can see, the formula achieves the dual objective of putting high weight on recent polls without giving any pollster undue influence. If you look more closely, you'll note that the three pollsters with the most recent polls (totaling 64% weight) have a combined weight of just 45%. This is achieved by assigning negative weight to those pollsters' older polls, and the sum of those negative weights is a significant -19%. If those pollsters did not have an older poll, then their newer poll would receive a lower weight, as there would be no way to correct for their pollster-specific bias.
Projection Update: Abacus 8/2-6
The following poll has been added to the model:
Abacus' 8/2-6 national poll (current weight among national polls: 28%)
For a full list of included polls, see previous Projection posts.
This Abacus poll was relatively strong for the Liberals in Atlantic Canada and QC. In ON, while it is not as high for the Liberals as other recent polls, the Liberal lead has grown from 1 to 5 points relative to the two previous Abacus polls.
This was also a good poll for the NDP, as were Abacus' two previous polls. So it seems like Abacus is pretty consistently high on the NDP these days.
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 4)
Abacus' 8/2-6 national poll (current weight among national polls: 28%)
For a full list of included polls, see previous Projection posts.
This Abacus poll was relatively strong for the Liberals in Atlantic Canada and QC. In ON, while it is not as high for the Liberals as other recent polls, the Liberal lead has grown from 1 to 5 points relative to the two previous Abacus polls.
This was also a good poll for the NDP, as were Abacus' two previous polls. So it seems like Abacus is pretty consistently high on the NDP these days.
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: August 4)
LIB - 159 (33.5%)
CON - 141 (35.4%)
NDP - 21 (13.7%)
BQ - 11 (4.2%)
GRN - 5 (10.0%)
IND - 1 (Wilson-Raybould)
CON - 141 (35.4%)
NDP - 21 (13.7%)
BQ - 11 (4.2%)
GRN - 5 (10.0%)
IND - 1 (Wilson-Raybould)
If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.
Caution: The Liberals are winning disproportionately many tight races, so the expected number of seats is probably closer to something like 155-145. Still, the projection keeps improving for them thanks to strength in key areas.
Relative to the last projection:
- Liberals take back one seat in NL from Tories: Avalon.
- Liberals take three seats in NS from Tories: Central Nova, South Shore--St. Margaret's, Sackville--Preston--Chezzetcook.
- Liberals take back one seat in PE from Tories: Egmont.
- Liberals take back one seat in QC from the NDP: Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques.
- Liberals take back one seat in QC from Tories: Québec.
- Liberals take back one seat in QC from the Bloc: Laurier--Sainte-Marie.
- The NDP takes back two seats in ON from Liberals: Ottawa Centre, Nickel Belt.
- Liberals take one seat in ON from Tories: Richmond Hill.
- Tories take back one seat in AB from Liberals: Calgary Skyview.
- The NDP takes one seat in BC from Tories: Burnaby South.
Caution: The Liberals are winning disproportionately many tight races, so the expected number of seats is probably closer to something like 155-145. Still, the projection keeps improving for them thanks to strength in key areas.
Relative to the last projection:
- Liberals take back one seat in NL from Tories: Avalon.
- Liberals take three seats in NS from Tories: Central Nova, South Shore--St. Margaret's, Sackville--Preston--Chezzetcook.
- Liberals take back one seat in PE from Tories: Egmont.
- Liberals take back one seat in QC from the NDP: Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques.
- Liberals take back one seat in QC from Tories: Québec.
- Liberals take back one seat in QC from the Bloc: Laurier--Sainte-Marie.
- The NDP takes back two seats in ON from Liberals: Ottawa Centre, Nickel Belt.
- Liberals take one seat in ON from Tories: Richmond Hill.
- Tories take back one seat in AB from Liberals: Calgary Skyview.
- The NDP takes one seat in BC from Tories: Burnaby South.
Friday, August 9, 2019
EKOS Tidbits
Frank Graves of EKOS has also tweeted some provincial results (ON and QC) for polling conducted this week. However:
a) he did not provide the full national numbers, and
b) he did mention that, despite weakness in ON and QC, the Tories lead by 5 nationally.
As a result, adding the ON and QC figures to the model would mean only adding the Liberal-favouring parts of a poll. Therefore, I will not be adding these results to the model.
Nevertheless, the good Liberal numbers in ON are consistent with the two other most recent polls (here and here) - all three of these polls show the Liberals up 11 points or more in ON. At the same time, the poor Conservative number in QC suggests that recent encouraging numbers for the Tories there may be due to random noise.
It will be interesting to see what Abacus shows in its release planned for tomorrow. Abacus numbers tend to be quite stable over time (which suggests that it may weight responses aggressively). Its last two polls had the Liberals up by only 1 point in ON. If Abacus also shows a big Liberal lead there, it could be time to start asking seriously what's going on in ON (or is it just Doug Ford?).
a) he did not provide the full national numbers, and
b) he did mention that, despite weakness in ON and QC, the Tories lead by 5 nationally.
As a result, adding the ON and QC figures to the model would mean only adding the Liberal-favouring parts of a poll. Therefore, I will not be adding these results to the model.
Nevertheless, the good Liberal numbers in ON are consistent with the two other most recent polls (here and here) - all three of these polls show the Liberals up 11 points or more in ON. At the same time, the poor Conservative number in QC suggests that recent encouraging numbers for the Tories there may be due to random noise.
It will be interesting to see what Abacus shows in its release planned for tomorrow. Abacus numbers tend to be quite stable over time (which suggests that it may weight responses aggressively). Its last two polls had the Liberals up by only 1 point in ON. If Abacus also shows a big Liberal lead there, it could be time to start asking seriously what's going on in ON (or is it just Doug Ford?).
Projection Update: Innovative 7/26-31 (and other dates)
The following polls have been added to the model:
Innovative's 6/28-7/8 and 7/26-31 national polls, and 7/18-29 ON poll (current weights among national polls: -4% and 21%)
For a full list of included polls, see previous Projection posts.
Innovative's results tend to favour the Liberals, and that is indeed what we see in the online national polls (outside QC). The model does not adjust for pollster bias (because I'm lazy), but it's not a huge concern since the effect on the average is modest (and a couple of the other fairly recent polls are from pollsters with a Tory lean lately). However, in the ON poll conducted by phone, the result does not show a Liberal lean, so maybe Innovative's Liberal tilt is just for its online panel.
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: July 30.5)
Innovative's 6/28-7/8 and 7/26-31 national polls, and 7/18-29 ON poll (current weights among national polls: -4% and 21%)
For a full list of included polls, see previous Projection posts.
Innovative's results tend to favour the Liberals, and that is indeed what we see in the online national polls (outside QC). The model does not adjust for pollster bias (because I'm lazy), but it's not a huge concern since the effect on the average is modest (and a couple of the other fairly recent polls are from pollsters with a Tory lean lately). However, in the ON poll conducted by phone, the result does not show a Liberal lean, so maybe Innovative's Liberal tilt is just for its online panel.
Seats projected ahead as of the latest national poll (midpoint: July 30.5)
LIB - 153 (33.5%)
CON - 148 (35.6%)
NDP - 19 (13.1%)
BQ - 12 (4.1%)
GRN - 5 (10.4%)
IND - 1 (Wilson-Raybould)
CON - 148 (35.6%)
NDP - 19 (13.1%)
BQ - 12 (4.1%)
GRN - 5 (10.4%)
IND - 1 (Wilson-Raybould)
If you're new to my 2019 projections, view key interpretive information here.
As it turns out, the last projection (after the methodology modification) should have been 151-151-19-11-5-1, with the difference that after I got rid of some rounding, Ottawa Centre remained NDP. Relative to this baseline:
- Liberals retake one seat in PE from Tories: Charlottetown.
- Tories pick up one seat in QC from Liberals: Québec (but note: there's a cautious anti-Tory adjustment in Quebec City (and pro-Tory adjustment in QC outside Quebec City and Montréal), which would grow if more polls confirm that they are gaining less support there than elsewhere in QC).
- The Bloc picks up one seat in QC from Liberals: Laurier--Sainte-Marie (but note: I am waiting for a riding poll to potentially make a Steven Guilbeault adjustment in this riding).
- Liberals pick up one seat in ON from the NDP: Ottawa Centre.
- Liberals pick up one seat in ON from Tories: Cambridge.
- Liberals pick up one seat in AB from Tories: Calgary Skyview (but note: if the MP, who was expelled from the Liberal caucus, runs again, there will be an anti-Liberal adjustment; even if he doesn't, I'm skeptical of the Liberals' chances here).
- The NDP picks up one seat in BC from Tories: North Island--Powell River.
As it turns out, the last projection (after the methodology modification) should have been 151-151-19-11-5-1, with the difference that after I got rid of some rounding, Ottawa Centre remained NDP. Relative to this baseline:
- Liberals retake one seat in PE from Tories: Charlottetown.
- Tories pick up one seat in QC from Liberals: Québec (but note: there's a cautious anti-Tory adjustment in Quebec City (and pro-Tory adjustment in QC outside Quebec City and Montréal), which would grow if more polls confirm that they are gaining less support there than elsewhere in QC).
- The Bloc picks up one seat in QC from Liberals: Laurier--Sainte-Marie (but note: I am waiting for a riding poll to potentially make a Steven Guilbeault adjustment in this riding).
- Liberals pick up one seat in ON from the NDP: Ottawa Centre.
- Liberals pick up one seat in ON from Tories: Cambridge.
- Liberals pick up one seat in AB from Tories: Calgary Skyview (but note: if the MP, who was expelled from the Liberal caucus, runs again, there will be an anti-Liberal adjustment; even if he doesn't, I'm skeptical of the Liberals' chances here).
- The NDP picks up one seat in BC from Tories: North Island--Powell River.
Model Modification and Beauce Update
This is a quick post to note a minor modification to the model. The relevant methodology post has been updated. I have also revised the first two projections (here and here) in order to maintain comparability going forward.
Addendum: I have also updated the adjustment for Beauce based on this Mainstreet poll. (Minor changes to Quebec regional adjustments were also made.) This update will be in effect as of the next projection, but it wouldn't change the current projection anyway.
Addendum: I have also updated the adjustment for Beauce based on this Mainstreet poll. (Minor changes to Quebec regional adjustments were also made.) This update will be in effect as of the next projection, but it wouldn't change the current projection anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)