Mapping the 2011 Canadian Federal Election

May 13, 2011 7:44 PM

12 maps of the recent federal election in Canada. See also this large PDF map posted by Elections Canada.
posted by stp123 (47 comments total)

I know "liberal" and "conservative" but what's NDP? I assume it is a form of liberal, or left of center, given the hypothetical merger scenario maps.
posted by stbalbach at 7:59 PM on May 13, 2011

Let me google that for you.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 8:02 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

So help me understand this, the blue is Tim Horton's and the orange is poutine?
posted by orthogonality at 8:04 PM on May 13, 2011

So help me understand this, the blue is Tim Horton's and the orange is poutine?

If only.
posted by LMGM at 8:06 PM on May 13, 2011

Yup orthogonality; and red is stubbies.
posted by parki at 8:06 PM on May 13, 2011

Why do the liberals gotta be red, and the conservatives blue?

Dang it Canada...can't you just admit you're Northern Montana rather than trying to screw up all of North America with your radical colorization of election maps?
posted by hal_c_on at 8:10 PM on May 13, 2011

It's the maps at the end, showing a hypothetical NDP - Liberal merger (with very simplified assumptions) that matter.

A number of ridings, especially in the Golden Horseshoe, only went to the Tories by a plurality, because the opposition vote was split between the Libs and the NDP.

Hopefully, the trade off in the real world is that another Harper government is the cost of a historic realignment that sees the effective end of the Grits.
posted by orthogonality at 8:13 PM on May 13, 2011

Can someone explain what happened to the Bloc Quebecois? How did they get smashed so badly?
posted by jasper411 at 8:17 PM on May 13, 2011

It's the maps at the end, showing a hypothetical NDP - Liberal merger (with very simplified assumptions) that matter.

If the Tories were to merge with the Liberals, the resulting Conserberals would also get a majority. What? It's about as likely and meaningful as the scenario presented here. Equally flawed is the assumption that the Liberal Democrats would capture all the current Liberal voters.
posted by Behemoth at 8:20 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Bloc was dumped for the NDP; that that didn't happen in Ontario (dumping the Libs for the NDP) is why the Tories won (wait for the next election).
posted by orthogonality at 8:21 PM on May 13, 2011

Why do the liberals gotta be red, and the conservatives blue?

Because that's the way most of the world mostly sees it most of the time. (Yeah, the NDP should really be red instead of orange, but hey, it's my favourite colour and I approve of the way it's shaken out.)

The current American schema of red and blue is the result of an arbitrary mapping of these colours to Republicans and Democrats that shifted back and forth for a while. Back in 2000, around the time that political coverage turned into all horse race, all the time on cable news, things got stuck in the current configuration.

In the United States the two major political parties use the national colours — red, white, and blue. Historically, the only common situation in which it has been necessary to assign a single colour to a party has been in the production of political maps in graphical displays of election results. In such cases, there had been no consistent association of particular parties with particular colours. In the weeks following the 2000 election, however, there arose the terminology of red states and blue states, in which the conservative Republican Party was associated with red and the liberal Democratic Party with blue. Political observers latched on to this association, which resulted from the use of red for Republican victories and blue for Democratic victories on the display map of a television network. In 2004, the association was mostly kept. However, maps for presidential elections produced by the U.S. government use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans.[citation needed] In September 2010, the Democratic Party officially adopted an all-blue logo. Around the same time, the official Republican website began using a red logo.

posted by maudlin at 8:23 PM on May 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Equally flawed is the assumption that the Liberal Democrats would capture all the current Liberal voters.

Don't we assume that in this election, many of the older more conservative voters already moved to the Tories?
posted by orthogonality at 8:30 PM on May 13, 2011

Just a quick run-down of the Canadian political parties, from the perspective of an American.

Conservative- Similar to American Republicans, although not quite as far-right. Currently in power, they had a minority until this election. Now they have a Bush-circa-2002 majority.

Liberal- Center-left party, seems to be emphasis on the center. Formerly dominant in Canadian politics, they have since eroded and one major scandal wounded them deeply.

NDP- Left wing party, one of their major platform issues is pro-labor. Formerly a third/fourth niche party, they're now the Official Opposition and the strongest opponents to the Conservatives. These two parties do not like each other at all.

Bloc Quebecois- Left wing party, in favor of an independent Quebec. The movement for an independent Quebec has lost steam. They also only ran in Quebec, obviously enough. They went from a regional power winning over half of Quebec's seats in the House of Commons every election since 1993 to a mere four seats this time. Most Bloc voters who switched did so in favor of the NDP.

Greens- Pro-environment. Most of their policies lean left, but not all. Recently gained one seat in the House of Commons.

The balance of power was previously one where the Conservatives had to coalition with a leftist party (In this case, the Bloc) to form government, while the Liberals held opposition. Now, the Conservatives have a majority and can sustain government. The Bloc is all but finished as a party, the Liberals suffered the worst hit they've seen since 1984 except in this case it has been a progressive slide, and the NDP has had the strongest performance they have ever seen.

It's basically a realignment election in Canada, this map is wishful thinking by anti-Conservative voters who wished the Liberal party would have rolled over and died rather than permit enough splits with the NDP to see enough Conservative MPs voted into office that they would have a full majority, and it's really quite interesting theory but utterly useless practice. The biggest boon the NDP could reasonably hope to see from other parties in the next election is the potential for the remnants of the Bloc to go their way.

Again, this is just what it looks like to an American. Any real Canadians care to help me out and correct the misconceptions?
posted by Saydur at 8:32 PM on May 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

jasper411: Can someone explain what happened to the Bloc Quebecois? How did they get smashed so badly?

I don't actually think they were drunk, it just really seems that way sometimes.
posted by gman at 8:39 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

And younger voters don't hate Federalism, or love the idea of an independent Quebec, as fervently.
posted by orthogonality at 8:42 PM on May 13, 2011

Yeah, the Bloc were so out of favour that they lost a seat to a 27 year old who was partying down in Vegas during the short campaign and had never set foot in her riding.
posted by gman at 8:46 PM on May 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Dumping Quebec does seem less desirable now
posted by Blasdelb at 8:49 PM on May 13, 2011

Please stop posting things about the election.
I'm trying to forget over here, and to simply drink beer and *fingers in ears* pretend that things are just fine for the next four years la la la i can't hear what anyone's talking about la la la lallalalala.
posted by chococat at 9:05 PM on May 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

The next four years are going to be interesting times in Canadian politics.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:10 PM on May 13, 2011

Took a US blogger to nail it best.
posted by Mike D at 9:12 PM on May 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

My fucking fury is undiminished.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:19 PM on May 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

jasper411: Can someone explain what happened to the Bloc Quebecois? How did they get smashed so badly?

I asked the same question of my friend who grew up in Montreal. She believes it was because younger Quebecois voters are not convinced that separatism is the solution for Quebec's current problems; they would rather vote for politicians who are more concerned with broader social issues like poverty, health care, and education (hence NDP). She also said that she thought under/unemployed Quebecois blame separatism for making investors nervous and undermining the economic stability of the province.

[on preview: what orthogonality said]

Saydur, I thought your summary was pretty good (and shows more understanding than some Canadians have at this point, unfortunately). A point of correction though: Harper didn't actually form a coalition government with the Bloc, although he did propose it back in 2004. In 2008, the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP publicly agreed to form a coalition and sent a letter to Governor General Michaelle Jean to express non-confidence in the Conservatives. Harper avoided the potential toppling of his minority government by proroguing (shutting down) Parliament for two months. This tells you how he tends to handle criticism.

And now, thanks to the stupidity of our electoral system, we are stuck with him for the next four years. Yeesh.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 9:25 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Can someone explain what happened to the Bloc Quebecois?

So that Giles, he was ton ami for a long time. He was smart, he idealistic, he wanted the best for you, he looked good even in a hairnet. But he never seemed to get anything for you, wanted you all to himself and people stopped paying attention to you. You weren't the one who got fought over, who had the pick of the next boy, as you were accustomed to. Crafty old Jean had figured out that he could make Ontario, (plain, hopeless Ontario!) the belle of the ball, and ride her coat tails.

Giles was fun, and a part of you will always love him, but it was time for someone new.

Stephen was too anglo, too sweatervest, and besides, who knew what was hiding under that smirk of his. You'd taken a beau risque with an old con before and that had all ended in tears. Not Stephen.

Iggy, with his sharp red tie, had been pushed forward by his lib chums just for you. On paper he was like Pierre, back when Pierre could paddle your canoe anywhere: whip-smart, cultured, even a bit of a wit. But Iggy was all stuffed shirt and pomp and hot air, and he sounded like your least favourite professor in school.

Now Jack, Jack was a small surprise, his dashing looks, his swagger, his granddaughter, Beatrice. He was anglo, but he had a cute accent. Jack liked the same things as you, cared as deeply for the people as you did, wanted to right by everyone. Plus the man can really work a mustache. With a chance, Jack could realy put you back on the map again.
posted by bonehead at 9:39 PM on May 13, 2011 [9 favorites]

A hypothetical Liberal-NDP merger is one hell of an assumption.

Historical animosity for starters. Payback another. Outright loathing and distrust will ensure it will never, ever happen, much less that voters' allegiances would stay true to both in such an unlikely scenario.
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:40 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Historical animosity for starters. Payback another. Outright loathing and distrust will ensure it will never, ever happen, much less that voters' allegiances would stay true to both in such an unlikely scenario.

Capt., are you talking about the Reform-PC merger or a possible Lib-NDP merger? I can't really tell.
posted by bonehead at 9:48 PM on May 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

what is the historic animosity between the Libs and the NDP?

and how come no one (including me) calls the Libs the Grits any more? Tory is still around.
posted by jb at 9:49 PM on May 13, 2011

reform and the pcs could only merge after Peter MacKay made a deal with the Devil in his own blood - or maybe that was with the blood of every decent Tory left.
posted by jb at 9:50 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

What does four years have to do with it? We don't have terms on elections...
posted by dobie at 10:09 PM on May 13, 2011

Took a US blogger to nail it best.


Good god, is Wonkette always that annoying and hard to read?
posted by rocket88 at 10:10 PM on May 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

dobie > What does four years have to do with it? We don't have terms on elections...

Yes we do.
posted by Decimask at 10:11 PM on May 13, 2011

hurdy gurdy girl- Thanks. I knew something seemed off about my memory there, and it did seem odd for the Bloc to agree to anything with Harper. The whole proroguing was in my mind, but I forgot that's what led to it.

Best of luck to you during the dark times up north.
posted by Saydur at 10:13 PM on May 13, 2011

The birth of today's Conservative party was not an easy one. Wikipedia has some of the gory details. Basically, the Reform party was formed because a lot of conservatives thought that Brian Mulroney wasn't right wing enough. Then Reform became the United Alternative and then the Canadian Alliance in a series of transformations that brought it closer and closer to the conservative ideal. The goal was to reinvigorate the Progressive Conservative party, but their leader Joe Clark wouldn't play along. So the Alliance finally pulled off a sort of... hostile takeover and finally merged with the PCs. It was very much a revolution from below, with the rank and file membership defying Clark (who had already resigned) by dissolving their old party and forming a new one with the members of the Alliance. The Alliance leader (Harper) became the new Conservative party leader, naturally.

So this kind of thing isn't easy. If the Liberals and NDP were to pull of a similar merger it would probably happen over the metaphorical dead body of whoever leads the Liberals next.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:16 PM on May 13, 2011

Don't forget that too-brief, but memorable variation: the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance party.
posted by bonehead at 10:20 PM on May 13, 2011

Bloc Quebecois- Left wing party

Saydur, If I were to try to pin the tail, I'd say they're centrist. The party was made up of lefties who wanted to separate from Canada, Conservatives and Liberals. One of their leaders, Bouchard, was a Progressive Conservative with a cabinet position in the Mulroney years.
posted by squeak at 11:15 PM on May 13, 2011

and how come no one (including me) calls the Libs the Grits any more? Tory is still around.

Ahem. See my second comment in this thread.
posted by orthogonality at 11:35 PM on May 13, 2011

These maps are fun to look at, but it's only so much speculation until we're a few years down the road.

As a Torontonian, this election was pretty painful to watch. The previous election had the Barbarians at the gates, and this one saw them throw the gates open. And it's easy to blame this all on our electoral system, but...

The fact of the matter is that Ontario handed Canada ten years of Liberal leadership. About 95% of seats in each of the 90s elections went to the liberal party from Ontario, and a lot of it was the result of a degree of vote splitting, especially from the conservative parties. And all the conservative voices in parliament were left with little influence.

I would imagine progressive voters, at least in Ontario, are feeling pretty exhausted. Maybe we'll see something with the Liberals and NDP like what we saw with the conservative parties in the 90s. But just as then, such a situation now will take a while to bear fruit. The only hope I have for the removal of the Conservatives in the next election would come from their own performance or lack thereof.

I like to think of Canada as a naturally moderate, diplomatic, and tolerant place. This seems more like wishful thinking every day, but it's the only hope that leads me to believe that we won't have a decade of majority Conservative rule.
posted by Alex404 at 1:45 AM on May 14, 2011

I'm not counting the Bloc out yet. They still received a quarter of the votes here in Quebec, and were only hurt by how uniform their support is. (This is how the Liberals managed to win twice as many seats in Quebec with barely half the votes. Ah, FPTP.) I worry that the NDP's "orange wave" might turn out like Mario Dumont's surprising and fleeting success.

The NDP is going to have to manage a caucus that's divided between Quebec and the rest of Canada, which hasn't been easy to do in recent years. I'm sure Harper will try as hard as possible to bring up issues about which Quebec disagrees with the rest of Canada–bilingual judges or reapportioning parliament, for example–just to watch the NDP flail around trying to keep both groups happy. If by the next election he can paint the NDP as willing to sacrifice Canada for Quebec, I'm afraid he'll do rather well.

However, I'm rather sanguine about the possibility of an NDP/Liberal merger. Yes, it's true that some Grits might vote Tory rather than NDP, but most of those have already moved to the Tories. Recent polling (PDF) has shown that over half of Liberal voters have the NDP as their second choice, compared to only 11% who choose the Conservatives.
posted by vasi at 2:55 AM on May 14, 2011

ortho - that doesn't answer my question. I was talking about the nicknames - why has the "Grit" nickname disapeered?
posted by jb at 5:10 AM on May 14, 2011

Putting aside the political stuff, from a cartographic perspective, those are some nice maps.
posted by desjardins at 7:42 AM on May 14, 2011

I didn't know the conservatives didn't run a full slate. What happened in Portneuf -- Jacques-Cartier?
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on May 14, 2011

Mitheral: The incumbent in Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier was André Arthur, an independent who leans conservative. He was expected to have another rather tight race against the Bloc, so the Tories didn't want to split the conservative-ish vote.
posted by vasi at 11:22 AM on May 14, 2011

jb: and how come no one (including me) calls the Libs the Grits any more?

The nickname hasn't totally disappeared; it still seems to be used in some newspaper headlines:

Grits Can't Sway Public Opinion--Kamloops Daily News, Mar. 22, 2011
Grits Begin Challenge of Reinventing the Liberal Brand--Niagara Falls Review, May 4, 2011
Editorial: Grits Must Serve Meatier Gruel--The [Vancouver] Province, May 4, 2011
Grits Must Get Back to Grassroots--Cape Breton Post, May 12, 2011

But I agree that it doesn't get used much in everyday conversation. Maybe it just seems sort of old-fashioned. For example, whenever I hear the term, it reminds me of the political discussions in Anne of Green Gables, so it strikes me as very turn-of-the-century and quaint.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:02 PM on May 14, 2011

"I was talking about the nicknames - why has the "Grit" nickname disapeered?"

Who cares? Good riddance.

Plus it's not a MANLY nickname, like CONJob, or ReformaTory.
posted by sneebler at 5:27 PM on May 14, 2011

Why do the liberals gotta be red, and the conservatives blue?

If anything, the NDP should be red, given it's the colour of labour parties and (democratic or otherwise) socialists around pretty much the entire world, North America excepted.
posted by Kurichina at 8:27 AM on May 16, 2011

Conservative- Similar to American Republicans, although not quite as far-right. Currently in power, they had a minority until this election. Now they have a Bush-circa-2002 majority.

Policy-wise, if you take their platforms at their word, the Conversatives are still to the left of the American Democratic Party on most issues, particularly civil liberty related issues such as abortion, gay marriage (Harper will not move to re-open either of these issues, even with a majority - at worst he'll chip away at funding for international orgs that support abortion).

I'm still very much not a fan of the Conservatives, but to say that they are they same as USian Republicans, especially George Bush, is simply inaccurate.
posted by Kurichina at 8:31 AM on May 16, 2011

Kurichina: Policy-wise, if you take their platforms at their word, the Conversatives are still to the left of the American Democratic Party on most issues, particularly civil liberty related issues such as abortion, gay marriage (Harper will not move to re-open either of these issues, even with a majority - at worst he'll chip away at funding for international orgs that support abortion).

Much as I hope you're right, I have a fear that the only thing that's kept Stephen Harper and his Conservatives from completely dismantling women's and gay rights is their previous minority government status. It gave me the chills to hear about this the other day:

Thousands of activists rallied on Parliament Hill on Thursday calling for an end to abortion, with Tory MPs urging them to reopen the bitter debate on the issue.
....
A group of 21 members of Parliament, 18 of them Conservatives, addressed the enthusiastic crowd.
....
Jeff Watson, a southern Ontario Conservative, used the biblical phrasing of a preacher in his comments. “We can all declare that first of all we will have in Canada a culture that supports life from conception to natural death,” he said. “We will see that come to pass.

“And secondly, I think we can all declare together an end to the old debate about abortion and the dawn of a new day in Canada where abortion will be unthinkable. I think we can all say amen to that.”

posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:28 AM on May 16, 2011

That march happens every year, and it's numbers are typically inflated as several Ottawa-area Catholic high schools give their student bodies a day off if they attend the march. The only thing that's different this year is that the Con MPs weren't joined by Liberal misogynists like Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and Joe Volpe, etc, etc, because they were defeated.
posted by Kurichina at 12:34 PM on May 16, 2011