Life and loss – celebrating two friends in politics

As we get older, we are faced with our own mortality, and, sadly, that of our friends.

This week, many of us were shocked to learn that Doug Eastwood had died of a heart attack during the Sun Run.  Doug made numerous contribution to public life – as a crown prosecutor, Chair of the Justice Institute, volunteer with Last Door Recovery Society, and as a campaign volunteer over the years.  It was shocking to lose someone so full of life and vibrancy as Doug, so suddenly.

Doug.jpgI first met him in 1986 when he was dispatched to BC from Ottawa by the Liberal Party of Canada to help the fledgling provincial BC Liberal campaign under the leadership of Art Lee.  The campaign didn’t succeed, but presumably Doug liked what he saw as he came west to study law at UBC.

I had not known Doug that well until he volunteered on Christy Clark’s leadership campaign in 2010.  He showed up to that campaign with passion and intensity.  It was a campaign driven by volunteers and he was instrumental in recruiting them and tending to them.  He brought a spirit and positivity that was infectious.  Talking to Doug always left one in a happier place.

During Christy’s first term, Shirley Bond was appointed Attorney-General, combining that role with Solicitor-General.  The “General” was not a lawyer, therefore, we sought a legal resource to provide her with day-to-day advice in the Minister’s Office.  Doug agreed to be seconded to work with the General.  He was invaluable and Shirley got a lot done as A-G.

He would have been a fantastic candidate for office.  I certainly asked him, as did others. He would have been a great Attorney-General, with his extensive legal knowledge and reservoirs of compassion.

Earlier this year, another friend and political volunteer succumbed to heart failure as well – John Aisenstat.

Like Doug, John was much-loved.  While Doug was a lifelong federal Liberal, John was a lifelong Conservative.  Both in their 50s when they passed, they had worked their way up on separate tracks in politics in the 1980s.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 10.56.50 AM.pngJohn was a veteran of the 1983 Mulroney leadership campaign, where many young (Progressive) Conservatives of that era had their political futures forged from the heat and intensity of that race.  John became known as an expert in Leader’s Tour – the peculiar mix of news and entertainment, politics and show business.  Underpinning his expertise was his mastery of logistics.

He could tell you where every landing strip for every type of plane was located, or where to get cold beer for the tour bus. He knew the shorthand for every one-horse town in BC and probably all of Canada.  He managed tours for Brian Mulroney and he led the 1996 Gordon Campbell tour.  It was a different time back then when there was a considerable working media who had to be mollycoddled on the bus, then taken on desperate dashes to file their stories.  This was also a time before blackberries, iPhones and reliable cell phone coverage.  It was a logistical puzzle and John was the puzzle master.  His logistical superiority was secondary, however, to his strategic mind and political knowledge.

John was beloved for his wit and sense of humour.  Like Doug, he did not view politics as a career.  It was a hobby, and he was good at it.  He volunteered in politics his entire life.  He always stepped up.

I am very saddened that the first half of 2018 has seen the loss of these two thoughtful, generous, warm individuals who didn’t ask anything from politics, but rather gave of themselves considerably.  They are both a great advertisement for the political adventure and the great people you meet along the way.  Those who have had the experience of volunteering and working in politics know that we are blessed to work with people like Doug and John.  This is why losing brothers-in-arm like them is particularly hard.  Two guys with the biggest hearts had their hearts give out.  RIP both.

Note: Doug’s obituary is here

Advertisements

It’s no time to change time change

By Jay Denney

It’s one of the longest ongoing debates in the public sphere – should we keep changing our clocks twice a year, or not? For as long as anyone can remember, it is an issue that pops up twice a year, gets debated for a week or so, and then the sun sets on the conversation yet again (either an hour earlier or later than when the debate started).

131118_e209h_rci-fleming-1879_sn635.jpg

At a Toronto meeting in 1879, Sandford Fleming proposes international Greenwich time, dividing the world into 24- one hour zones. starting at the Greenwich meridian. (Radio Canada International)

2017, however, has been different. The Alberta Legislature recently studied the matter, and ultimately voted to keep observing Daylight Saving Time (DST). And in B.C., MLA Linda Larson has introduced a Private Member’s Bill to scrap DST province-wide. The argument in favour of keeping clocks the same year-round tends to focus on the first two three days after the spring ahead or fall back, mainly on the effects on health and increased auto and workplace accidents.

But what about the impact on the B.C. business community? Currently, B.C. maintains the same local time year-round with the US West Coast, which is a benefit to our burgeoning tech sector, who frequently interacts with other tech hubs in Seattle and Silicon Valley, just as the TV and film production sector does with Hollywood. They also maintain a permanent one-hour time difference with their Alberta neighbours, and a three-hour time difference with the major financial networks in Toronto and New York.   Affixing to either Standard or Daylight Savings Time would throw all of those time relationships off-kilter for part of the year (see Fig.2).   Could that be harmful to business development? Would U.S. based tech firms choose to grow their businesses state-side, thus slowing their recent expansions in B.C.? Would it impact where resource companies choose to locate their offices? Would it have an impact on jobs and opportunities in the financial sector?

One area it would certainly have an impact on would be transportation. Take for example, direct flights from Vancouver to Toronto, one of the busiest routes in the country. Currently, a flight leaving Vancouver lands in Toronto roughly 7.5 hours later (4.5 hours flying time plus 3 hour time change). If B.C. were to affix to a single time, that schedule goes off by an hour for half of the year, impacting connections, crew scheduling and ground operations, particularly with the first and last flights of each day. This could prompt Air Canada and WestJet to re-evaluate flight frequencies into and out of B.C. communities. In fact, WestJet was quite vocal during the Alberta Legislature’s study of the matter, and had projected a negative impact on air travel and connections in Calgary and Edmonton.

Further, while many people think changing the clocks is an outdated practice, there is less agreement as to which should be made permanent.   Keeping standard time year round would mean an earlier sunrise and sunset in the spring and summer, while fixing to daylight savings time would keep the late summer evenings we are used to, but mean darker morning and later sunsets in the winter.   Whatever choice is made, again it would have economic impacts. Take seasonal summer businesses for example. Many of them, such as boat and bike rental companies, and golf courses, rely on the late evening daylight to generate revenue. Would the business they lose from an earlier sunset be offset by having daylight at 3:45 in the morning? Not likely.

Most people can agree that the first few days after a time change are annoying, either because we’ve lost an hour of sleep in the spring, or because it is dark out by 4:00 pm in the fall. And we get cranky and say we just stop doing this already. But we shouldn’t be so quick to make that switch without thoroughly studying its full impact. At the very least, we should sleep on it… preferably for an extra hour in the fall.

Jay Denney is a long-time political advisor, with past experience as a Ministerial Chief of Staff in the BC Government, and as Director of Communications to former federal Cabinet Minister Stockwell Day.

Three lessons for Ontario from B.C. and the world of outrageous politics

Published in Globe & Mail, March 2 / 2018

As Ontario PC members and interested observers brace for the finale of an unanticipated and compressed leadership race, they may wish to take note of how BC Liberals recently selected Christy Clark’s successor using basically the same voting system. Instead of outrageous politics, the boring math will decide the next PC leader, and maybe the next Ontario Premier.

Three key points:

1) Some votes count more than others: In British Columbia, Andrew Wilkinson prevailed in the six-candidate race despite having the fifth-highest number of votes on the first count. How did he win?

It’s a weighted ballot. Every riding is created equally. A riding is worth 100 points, and points are allocated according to the percentage of votes received by each candidate. In Mr. Wilkinson’s case, while he had the fifth-highest number of raw votes on the first count, he had the third-highest number of points because he did well in ridings that had low membership levels (mainly in B.C.’s Interior) where his supporters had higher impact.

 Another candidate, Michael Lee, had more votes than anyone in the race but finished third because his support was concentrated in ridings with big membership lists.

 

2) First choices are important, but second and third choices will decide: It’s a preferential ballot, meaning that you only vote once and you have the opportunity to rank your choices. In the Ontario PC race, there are four candidates.

Mr. Wilkinson started third on the first ballot with only 18 per cent of the weighted votes, but he won. He made huge progress on the third count, and by the fourth count he was second, ultimately winning on the fifth and final count. He climbed throughout the counting process because he accumulated more second and third choices than any other candidate. He especially gained from former finance minister Michael de Jong, with whom he had a formal alliance to support each other as second choice, and from Mr. Lee, whose supporters decisively preferred Mr. Wilkinson over his final-ballot rival, Dianne Watts.

3) Not every voting member stays in the “convention hall” to the end: In the old days, delegates voted on the first ballot, heard the result, then lined up and voted again, and kept doing so until one candidate had a majority. In the Ontario PC system (as was the case in B.C.), members do all of their voting in advance, which means ranking their candidates from 1 to 4. However, they do not have to rank all of the candidates. They can just vote for their first choice if they want, but they might find that their ballot won’t count when it comes down to the final two candidates.

In the BC Liberal race, about one-quarter of the voters who cast a vote on the first count did not have their ballots considered on the final count. They had essentially “walked out of the convention hall” as they did not express a preference for either Mr. Wilkinson or the runner-up, Ms. Watts. Since they had only voted for candidates already eliminated, their ballots were removed from the counting process. Smart candidates will plead for second and third choices from voters who might otherwise “leave the hall.”

 The outcome in B.C. was certainly unpredictable. When it comes down to who wins, the next Leader of the Ontario PCs may be the one who is the best at math.

Ben there, done that

Ben Stewart made way for Premier Christy Clark in 2013 and, last night, the voters of Kelowna West returned him to the BC Legislature to continue his career as MLA.

ben-stewart.jpg

Kelowna West MLA-elect Ben Stewart.

Someone had to open up a seat for Premier Christy Clark in 2013 when she was unseated in Vancouver-Pt. Grey despite winning a majority government.  Ben stepped up and, now, he has returned to where he has always truly wanted to be – serving his constituents in the BC Legislature.

Making way for defeated leaders has happened from time to time throughout Canadian history.  Canada’s longest serving prime minister, Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, lost his seat in York North in 1925.  A seat was made available in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan in 1926 which he won.  He stayed put in Prince Albert until 1945 when he lost his seat again and returned to run in a by-election in Glengarry, Ontario for his final term.  During that 19 year stretch in Prince Albert, he even managed to defeat a young, upstart named John Diefenbaker (the only time two people who served as prime ministers faced each other in an election?).

Ben Stewart’s resignation and return is not the first time this has happened in modern BC political times.  In 1975, NDP Premier Dave Barrett rushed to an election, in part to head off the revival of the Social Credit Party under Bill Bennett.  It didn’t work.  Bennett rallied the forces opposed to the NDP and vanquished the Barrett government, including Barrett himself who lost his seat in Coquitlam to Socred George Kerster by 18 votes.  Vancouver East MLA Bob Williams made way for Barrett, triggering a 1976 by-election that Barrett easily won.  After Barrett’s third successive defeat to Bennett in 1983, he retired and returned the seat to Bob Williams who was elected in a 1984 by-election. Williams had the additional task of fending off newly elected BC Liberal leader Art Lee, the first and only Chinese Canadian political leader of a major party in BC history.  Williams easily won and served until 1991.

As for the significance of the Kelowna-West by-election, here are the results for the last four times those voters went to the polls:

Table 1: Westside-Kelowna (2013) and Kelowna West (2017-8) results

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 9.10.54 AM.png

The 2017 by-election was the first time in four elections since 2013 (two by-elections and two general elections) that four parties had contested the seat.  (The name of the riding changed but the boundaries are identical).

No one party can claim any type of breakthrough.   The BC Liberals held their support, and given that there were two minor parties this time, losing a couple of points compared to previous efforts was bound to happen. (The final by-election results will not be available for a couple of weeks as Section 98-106 votes have not yet been counted.  It likely won’t change much.)

The NDP have slid in the riding since the 2013 general election, which reflects the move away from the NDP in the Interior in the 2017 election, but moreso, it’s the impact of the Greens showing up on the ballot in 2017 and 2018, splitting their vote a bit.  I wouldn’t be too fussed by this result if I was John Horgan.  They didn’t expect to win this and, in the 1990s, when they were deeply unpopular, they would be obliterated in such by-elections.   That wasn’t the case here.

The BC Conservatives returned to the ballot in the 2018 by-election but had a very similar result to the 2013 by-election and much less than 2013 general election.  In 1973, the BC Conservatives had stress tested the then Coalition party (the Socreds) in a by-election in South Okanagan to replace the retiring WAC Bennett.  BC Conservative leader Derrill Warren challenged WAC’s son, Bill Bennett.  The younger Bennett (39%) defeated Warren (24%), settling the issue.  This was significant as, arguably, Warren’s performance in the 1972 general election was a key factor in defeating the Socred government and electing the NDP.  After the ’73 by-election, Warren left BC politics, senior Conservatives joined the Socreds, and Bennett went on to be premier.  The Kelowna West by-election yesterday was decidedly uneventful by comparison.

It’s the Greens that should be down in the mouth.  Despite the controversy over the PipeWine dispute, the NDP held its second place standing comfortably over the bronze Greens.  If anything, it may show that as long as the NDP and Greens are in cahoots, it will be difficult for the Greens to make a relative gain against their Coalition partners.  Maybe they’re happy playing second fiddle.

For new BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson, he gets a win under his belt, even if it was gift-wrapped.  His team is back to 42 seats in the Legislature with no nasty surprises.

Wilkinson Win by the Numbers

The BC Liberal leadership election reached an exciting conclusion on February 3rd.  Five professional campaigns believed they had a pathway to victory and it was a night where the slightest breeze could have blown the math in another direction.

After gaming out the scenarios about infinity times, I could only come up with a few predictions – Dianne Watts would lead on the first count, Sam Sullivan would be sixth, and the race would go down to the fifth count.  What order would the candidates be from two to five?  Everyone had an opinion.  Of those four caucus contenders jockeying for position, certainly none were volunteering that they were fifth! If there was a prevailing theory about who was fifth, it often mentioned Wilkinson – and that theory wasn’t really wrong.  Wilkinson was fifth in terms of raw votes on the first count, but more importantly, third in terms of weighted votes (points), and that’s what matters.

andrew-wilkinson-b-c-liberals-election-night

BC Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson (CBC.ca)

I only knew one other thing for sure – that I was bound to be surprised.  Some candidates would fall short of expectations and some would exceed them.  You wouldn’t know until you saw it.

If you are wondering about how the votes get counted in this preferential ballot, regionally-weighted system, see my blog post on how it works.

The only way to look at this is one count at a time.

Table 1: Results by ballot (weighted)

Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 8.44.41 PM.png

Source: Wikipedia.  Note: this graphic was updated.  Original contained minor errors. 

Count 1

There was a feeling among many members I talked to that Dianne Watts would have a challenge growing her support as the counts progressed.  While well-known as Mayor of Surrey and enjoying the outsider mantle, she did not have deep personal connections throughout the province with Party members as Christy Clark had in 2011.    It was clear that she would need to start off strong in the high 20s and that there be a gap between her and the second and third  place candidates.  Her first count result (24.54%) fell short and the gap between her and her rivals too narrow.

Michael Lee’s second place showing on the first count (22.03%) was impressive for a rookie MLA that had just begun to raise his profile in the Party.  Lee pulled together a veteran campaign team and a strong group of supporters, with prowess in recruiting new members, particularly in the South Asian and Chinese-Canadian communities.  In fact, Lee had the most actual votes of any candidate in the first four counts.

Table 2: Raw votes by Ballot

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.22.22 PM.png

So, how you can get more votes and less points? Under the regional weighting system, every riding is treated equally.  A riding with 800 voting members is worth the same as a riding with 200 voting members.  While Lee had the highest number of casted votes, by a margin of more than 600 over Watts, many of them were in ridings with high membership totals.  On the other hand, Wilkinson had the fifth highest number of votes on the first count, but because he had strength in ridings with lower membership (eg. rural BC), he finished third in terms of points, which was critical.

Table 3: Vote efficiency (1st count)

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.24.09 PM.png

The table above shows that every candidate, but Lee, had a higher percentage of points compared to raw votes.  This is basically a reflection of Lee’s sign-up success in those high-member ridings.  Of the five ridings with the highest number of voters – Surrey Panorama, Abbotsford West, Surrey Newton, Vancouver Quilchena and Surrey Green Timbers –  Lee won four and was a strong second in the fifth.  He was second in Mike de Jong’s riding (Abbotsford West) which means Lee won Quilchena, Wilkinson’s riding (39% to 33%).

Notwithstanding the points system working against Lee, his second place finish put him in a strong position to win given that Watts was sub-25%.

Watts and Lee shared one trait in common – they were newcomers who did not have a Caucus endorsement between them.  They were banking on the Party members wanting to go in a different direction than what was being put forward by the three veteran ex-cabinet ministers in the race.

Those three ex-ministers – Wilkinson, Stone, de Jong – accounted for just about 52% of the points on the first count.  Only two percentage points separated third (Wilkinson) from fifth (de Jong).

Wilkinson and de Jong had announced their deWilkinson deal a couple of weeks ago where they recommended each other to their supporters for second choice.  It was an ideal scenario for Wilkinson to have placed ahead of de Jong and receive the hoped-for benefits of that deal.  Stone, stuck in the middle between Wilkinson and de Jong, could only hope for divine providence once de Jong dropped off the ballot.

Now that we know where everyone stood at the end the first count, where did the points come from?

Table 4: First count by region (weighted vote)

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.26.43 PM.png

Breaking down the Province into only three regions is a limited form of analysis, but it does show some key storylines.

Watts led the Island, and was second in the Lower Mainland, but slipped to third in the Interior.  While there are twice as many ridings in the Lower Mainland than the Interior, the weakness up country slowed down her first count support.

Michael Lee showed a lot of strength in the Lower Mainland, taking 29% of the points, eclipsing Wilkinson and Stone.  However, his support was less than half of that on the Island and in the Interior where he is not well known.

For a Vancouver guy, Andrew Wilkinson did not do well on the first count in the Lower Mainland.  But he did very well in the Interior.  When looking at his support and Stone’s, you can see that the profile of their vote, regionally, was very similar except that Wilkinson did just enough to keep ahead of him.

Wilkinson’s weakness in the Lower Mainland would be mitigated on subsequent counts by second, third, and fourth choices.

Mike de Jong showed well in the Lower Mainland, but could not generate enough support in the regions.

In terms of specific ridings, the table below shows the Top 5 ridings for each of the five main contenders:

Table 5: Top 5 ridings of leadership contenders on 1st count

Screen Shot 2018-02-05 at 10.53.19 PM.png

Watts’ top finishes were close to home, in South Surrey and the adjacent Langleys.  Lee drew on strong support in Surrey and Richmond, as well as his own riding in Vancouver. These ridings reflected his sign-up strength.  Wilkinson’s top 5 were all in the Interior and were all ridings held by caucus endorsers.  Stone dominated his riding of Kamloops-South Thompson (90.3%) and Kamloops North-Thompson (82.3). No other candidate received more than 67% on the first count in any given riding, so Stone’s Kamloops base really delivered.  Nearby Shuswap and Fraser Nicola also gave him majority tallies on the first count while North Van Seymour was his best showing in the Lower Mainland.  de Jong’s best result was in Peace South.  MLA Mike Bernier dropped out of the race early to endorse de Jong.  de Jong drew strength from the three Abbotsford ridings though did not gain majorities there.

Overall, what was interesting was how candidates did very well in some ridings and very poorly in others.  Wilkinson had 67.8% in Kootenay East but only 1.6% in Abbotsford South.  He was below 10% in 25 ridings on the first count.  Watts was stronger in more ridings than anyone with only five ridings where she had less than 10%, but she didn’t really crush it in enough ridings.  Stone had 31 ridings where he could not garner 10%, and his lowest five ridings were in Richmond, East Van, and Burnaby.  de Jong’s lowest five were all in the Interior where Stone and Wilkinson did well.  Similarly, Lee’s bottom five were in the Interior.

The ‘lumpiness’ of the voting results demonstrated the opportunity for candidates down the ballot to make big gains.  If you are at less than 2 points in a riding and end up with over 60 points by the fifth ballot, that’s a huge gain over the course of five ballots.  Thus the importance of second, third, and fourth choices.

Sam Sullivan’s support (1.82%) was not enough to trigger a realignment on the second count, so the next major move takes place on the third count.

Count 3

The results of the third count were dramatic, if you are a political nerd like me.

At this point, over 93% of the ballots were still in play.  That means 7% of the voters – those who voted for either Sullivan or de Jong – did not put second choices on their ballots and therefore their ballots were removed from the count.

With Mike de Jong eliminated on the second count, the question was where would de Jong’s second choices go.  A significant plurality went to Wilkinson.

de Jong finished the second count with 16.51% of the points.  Wilkinson took almost 40% of de Jong’s points.  He boosted his total from 18.74% to 25.29% – an increase of 6.55%.

The next closest gain was Dianne Watts who gained 3.5%, increasing to 28.38%.  Lee kept pace with Watts, gaining 3.45% but did not gain any ground.  Rather, he had Wilkinson breathing down his neck.  Stone had the least amount of de Jong’s points and given that he was already in fourth place, he dropped off the ballot.

Wilkinson went from 1.62% in Abbotsford South to 29%, from 2.55% in Abbotsford West to 23.98%, from 2.91% in Surrey Whalley to 18.58%, from 10.99% in Peace South to 39.51%.  Making gains in de Jong’s stronger ridings gave him that critical three point advantage on the third count.  Now, he was less than 1% behind Lee.

Stone exited the third count with 20.29%, a significant amount considering how close the top three candidates were between each other, only separated by 3.9%.

Count 4

The fourth count decided who would be on the final ballot with Dianne Watts.  Wilkinson was making a strong run up the ballot, but would it be enough?  That’s what many were thinking.

At this point, the total amount of votes being counted was about 87% of the original pile. Watts, Lee, and Wilkinson would see their points rise on the basis of attrition but it was the remaining votes that would make the difference. (It’s worth noting that the Stone ‘votes’ also included those de Jong and Sullivan voters who went to Stone on the second and third counts)

Where would Stone’s points be allocated?

It turned out that they were competitively allocated between the three candidates with Wilkinson gaining 37.4% of Stone’s points, Lee 32.2%, and Watts 30.4%.  And by the slimmest of margins, Wilkinson’s advantage over Lee made all of the difference.

The table below shows a regional breakdown of the fourth count and, below it, where the Stone votes went by region:

Table 6: (a) 4th count by region; (b) Growth from 3rd count to 4th count

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.35.51 PM.png

On the fourth count, Watts had the most balance between the regions ranging from about 30% in the Interior to 38% on the Island, but she did not have a dominant base.

Lee’s strength was in the Lower Mainland where his support now stood at over 40% of points – in the largest region (48 seats).  But his support on the Island and Interior was just over half of that.  Wilkinson was opposite, weak in the Lower Mainland, but strong outside – and very strong in the Interior (47%) – and he made larger gains in these regions while not falling much further behind Lee in the Lower Mainland

On a points basis overall, it was a measly difference of 0.33% between Wilkinson and Lee.  One third of one-percent.  If Lee had pulled ahead, he would most likely be the Leader now.

Lee is dropped off the ballot despite leading Wilkinson by over 2000 raw votes.  The table below shows the striking difference in the efficiency of the Lee and Wilkinson votes.  There was an 8 point swing from Lee to Wilkinson based on the weighted points system. Watts was about on the mark when her raw vote and weighted was compared.

Table 7: Raw votes (%) on 4th count compared to weighted vote

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.28.31 PM.png

Count 5

With Michael Lee eliminated, a few questions remained.  Theories abounded. Where would his sizeable support among the South Asian community, Chinese community, and some who identify with his conservative background gravitate toward?  Lee was winning Surrey – would those members opt for the former Mayor, Dianne Watts?  In Vancouver, would Lee’s strength near his home riding (and in Quilchena) naturally gravitate toward Wilkinson?

Overall, the answer was clear – overwhelmingly to Wilkinson.

Of the remaining 6271 raw votes coming from Lee’s fourth count, they broke decisively toward Wilkinson – about 75% of Lee’s support went to Wilkinson (which is mainly Lee first choice support but there would be some first count Stone, de Jong, and Sullivan support in there too).

On the fourth count, Lee had 9787 raw votes, the most of any candidate.  About 64% of those votes migrated to the fifth and final count, while 36% of Lee’s voters were removed as they did not indicate a choice of either Wilkinson or Watts.

Table 8: Distribution of Lee votes on 5th Count (raw votes)

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.43.33 PM.png

(The * above recognizes that an estimated 82% or more of that total was Lee-first count support and the balance from de Jong, Stone, and Sullivan who went to Lee before moving on to Watts or Wilkinson)

Taking a look at Lee’s top 10 ridings on the fourth count, the migration in those ridings in terms of raw votes and points was significantly higher to Wilkinson.  In Watts’ home base of Surrey, the Lee voters stampeded to Wilkinson, by a factor of 10 to 1 in some cases.  The shift in the Surrey ridings below, and Delta North, was almost entirely from South Asian members (This shift was not replicated to same extent among Lee members in Richmond or Vancouver). The overall shift from Lee to Wilkinson allowed Wilkinson to rise from the basement in terms of support in the Lower Mainland to basically tie Watts in that region.

Table 9: Movement on 5th count in Lee’s top 10 ridings

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 8.57.58 AM.png

This was the story of Wilkinson’s day.  He, by far, had the lowest amount of first-count support as a percentage of final count support.  Looking at raw votes, Wilkinson’s final count was made up only 38.5% of his first count support.

Table 10: First count as percentage of final count (raw votes)

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.45.04 PM.png

Up until the fourth count, his growth from de Jong, Stone, and Sullivan was also significantly higher than Lee.  On the fourth count, only 61.7% of his votes were his first choice votes, while Lee and Watts were at 82%.  Wilkinson’s growth rate was twice the rate of the others, which is why he caught up.  This was mainly attributable to de Jong’s second choices, but Stone’s second choices (which included some de Jong) also pitched in.

Table 11: Percentage of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd count support as % of 4th count support, and growth between 1st and 4th count

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 1.46.44 PM.png

This series of tables above is based on raw votes to show how actual people moved.  However, the actual results are based on weighted votes (points).  Wilkinson almost tripled from the first count result while Watts almost doubled.  Again, it was Wilkinson’s growth that was the key.

Table 12: First count votes as percentage of final count votes (weighted vote)

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 8.43.37 AM.png

A further aspect of Wilkinson’s support was from his Caucus endorsers.  He had the most compared to any other candidate.  On the first count, he had about 37% support in his Caucus endorser ridings.  To be specific, it was the Interior ridings where the Caucus endorsement seemed to make a difference, such as Kootenay East (68%) and Cariboo Chilcotin (59%).  On the final count, that support in Caucus ridings grew to over 60%.

Perhaps it’s the fourth count where it is noteworthy.

In the 14 ridings where he had an endorsement (including his own), he had 47% of the points compared to Watts (27%) and Lee (19%).  The difference between Wilkinson and Lee in these ridings was about 390 points.  Wilkinson edged Lee by 30 points.

Yes, you can say the opposite.  Lee had a considerable advantage in the Lower Mainland area compared to Wilkinson and had he edged him, we would be talking about that.  We would be talking about Michael Lee (or Dianne Watts) who won the leadership despite any caucus endorsements.  That’s true, but Wilkinson won and that’s, in part, how he did it.  That was particularly the case from his endorsers in the Interior.  In the Lower Mainland, Wilkinson won 2 of 5 ridings on the fourth count where he was endorsed (Coquitlam-Burke Mountain and Chilliwack-Kent).

Regionally, on the final count, Wilkinson would be strongest in the Interior (61.8%) but he grew in all regions as the counts unfolded, especially in the Lower Mainland. Starting at 12.1% on the first count, he had nowhere to go but up and finished in a near-tie with Watts in the region.  He overtook Watts on the Island, while Watts never got close in the Interior.

Table 13: (a) Final count by region, (b) Growth from 1st count to final by region

Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 11.42.03 AM.png

What role did attrition play in the final result?  Only three-quarters of voters who cast a a first choice vote had their ballot count on the final ballot.  That’s akin to a quarter of the voters walking out of the room after their candidate was eliminated to, yes, have a cheeseburger.

With a smaller pile of votes in play, Watts’ first choice votes actually amounted to about 33% on the final count (her original first count vote divided by the remaining votes).  Wilkinson’s first choice votes amounted to almost 25%.  In order for Watts to win, she needed growth and shrinkage – growth from her rivals at the same time voter attrition made her original support higher.  It wasn’t enough.  Wilkinson’s growth from Lee on the final count overwhelmed the benefits of the shrinking pile.

Keys to Victory

After that laborious review of the numbers, what are the takeaways?

  • Efficiency

The Wilkinson support was very efficient, meaning that they had a higher degree of support in lower-member ridings where votes had more impact.  Strategy is often borne from necessity and Wilkinson made the most of his support.

  • Interior Base

Wilkinson built a base of strong support in the Interior, which may seem counter-intuitive to casual observers given some try to brand him as a West-side elite. The Interior base was instrumental in getting him to third place on the ballot.

  • deWilkinson deal

Once in third, Wilkinson could reap the rewards of the deWilkinson deal.  Whether the deal made the difference, or it was just the nature of the deJong supporters to lean toward Wilkinson on their second choices will never be truly known.  But one thing is clear – de Jong’s seconds put him in a position to springboard to second place. Even if Wilkinson had finished fourth on the first count, he may still have leapt ahead of Stone given the strength of deJong voters’ support for him.  In 2011, de Jong’s second choices leaned heavily to Christy Clark and helped elect her Leader.

  • Wilkinson was a Stone’s throw to second

Again, Wilkinson drew on down ballot support, not to the extent of deJong’s support, but enough that he could make it to second place. Wilkinson made important gains on the Island and Interior from Stone, but also kept pace in the Lower Mainland with Watts and Lee.  The result was a bare 30 point edge over Lee to make it to second.  To put that margin in perspective, had 13 voters in Peace River South switched from Wilkinson to Lee, Lee would have made it to the final ballot and likely have defeated Watts.  It was that close. Slight changes in low-member ridings would have tipped the balance.

  • No Lee-way for Watts

Watts needed 47% of Lee’s points to win.  She only received 38% to Wilkinson’s 62%.  It was a decisive move by (primarily) Lee voters to elect Wilkinson, and especially from Lee’s supporters in Surrey and North Delta.


In a race this close, there is no one reason why a candidate won or lost.  There are a multitude. Yet we know that there is only one winner.  Despite having the fifth highest number of raw votes on the first count, Wilkinson parlayed regional strength into a third place finish, allowing him to receive down ballot support from de Jong and Stone.   He is not the first leader to trail on all ballots and win on the last – Andrew Scheer did it last year, trailing on 13 ballots before winning the 14th.

Wilkinson and his supporters will need to remember (as I’m sure they do) that they started off with 18.3% while 81.7% of the points were tied to another first choice.  This makes his task all the more important in terms of reaching out, mending relationships, healing divisions, and ensuring rivals and their teams play important roles going forward.  Dianne Watts came very close to winning and has a strong following throughout BC.  Her strength in suburban swing ridings during this process should gain the attention of the backroom.  Michael Lee has established himself as a force and emerging star on the provincial scene, adding to the depth that the new Leader has with Stone, de Jong, Sullivan, and the balance of Caucus.  Wilkinson has the largest Opposition Caucus in history at his disposal, an electoral referendum to fight, and a general election that could happen anytime.

Congratulations to Andrew Wilkinson and his team.   Moving from 18% to 53% over the course of five ballots does show one thing – just when we thought the Doctor-Lawyer-Rhodes Scholar could not be more educated, we may now have to add Mathematician to the list.

** There’s bound to be mistakes in this post somewhere.  Errors all mine.

Addenda

Update: February 7

I have added some numbers.  How did the leadership candidates do according to held seats and non-held seats?

Dianne Watts and Michael Lee had a combined 50.7% of the points in forty-one NDP ridings compared to a combined 43% in forty-three BC Liberal ridings (which includes Abbotsford South and Kelowna West for this analysis).  This is similar to the 2011 result where Christy Clark did much better on non-held than held seats.  The outsider candidates did not do as well in incumbent ridings.

Andrew Wilkinson and Todd Stone were stronger in BC Liberal ridings, Wilkinson especially so.  Wilkinson was 2nd in BC Liberal ridings and 4th in NDP ridings.  There are only three Green ridings so Watts’ advantage was not as important though Todd Stone wishes it was the case – it does reflect that Stone had some strength on the Island.

Table 14: First count leadership vote by BC Liberal, NDP, and Green ridings 

Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 11.55.20 AM.png

On the fifth count, Wilkinson led in BC Liberal and NDP ridings, but moreso in the held seats.  Watts held her advantage in the three Green ridings.

Table 15: Fifth count leadership vote by BC Liberal, NDP, and Green ridings

Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 11.47.48 AM.png

Update: February 8

Some more calculations to add to the mix.

Table 16: First count, raw vote by sub-region

Screen Shot 2018-02-08 at 10.24.31 PM.png

Table 16 shows the raw vote in each sub-region.  In the left-hand column, the number of ridings in that region is included for reference.  The most votes cast overall were in the Surrey-Delta area (686 per riding) followed by Vancouver (402) and then three regions that were very close together: Fraser Valley (390), Southern Interior (389), and Richmond (381).

Table 17: First count – Candidate raw votes in each sub-region as a percentage of each candidate’s province-wide vote. 

Screen Shot 2018-02-08 at 10.24.59 PM.png

Okay, let me explain.  This table shows what percentage of each candidate’s support came from each sub-region as a percentage of that candidate’s province-wide vote.  Of all the people that voted for Watts, 35% came from Surrey-Delta’s 11 ridings – the same as Michael Lee.  Stone had 35.1% of his province-wide raw vote come from the Southern Interior (and, actually, extremely high in Kamloops area).  For reference, the right hand column shows what percentage of the weighted vote each sub-region made up as part of province-wide total.  De Jong’s best region was the Fraser Valley (23.1% of all of his votes in BC), and that sub-region only accounted for 10.3% of the weighted vote so, yes, de Jong did quite well there.  As I write this, I’m yawning.  This is borderline pointless but I will leave it for the die hards.

Table 18: First count – Average raw vote per riding, by sub-region

Screen Shot 2018-02-08 at 10.24.47 PM.png

This is more straightforward.  Here are the raw votes per riding in each sub-region.  You can see here where a little could make a lot of difference.  Watts was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in each region.  Lee led four Metro Vancouver regions (Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, North East sector), but was fourth or fifth outside the Lower Mainland.  Wilkinson won the North, Kootenays, and was second in the Southern Interior and Island, while he did no better than third in the Lower Mainland sub-regions.

Table 19: Candidate raw vote increase per ballot

Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 8.58.34 PM.png

This table shows the distribution of raw votes per ballot and which candidate had the most members migrating in their direction.  On the second ballot, Michael Lee had the most Sam Sullivan supporters choosing him as their second choice (25.2%) with Andrew Wilkinson close behind.  On the third ballot, over half of the redistributed ballots went to Wilkinson, almost all from de Jong (though there were some Sullivan third choices who came to him via de Jong).  On the fourth ballot, Wilkinson also gained the most in terms of raw votes, edging Lee.  On the fifth ballot, almost three-quarters of redistributed raw votes chose Wilkinson.   Another aspect of Table 19 is how many ballots were retained through each count.  Over 96% of Sullivan voters carried on to the second count.  On the third count, on 61% of de Jong voters stuck around.  When Todd Stone dropped off, almost three-quarters (74%) carried on to a further choice and, on the fifth count, almost 80% carried on to provide another choice.

Table 20: Candidate share of point increase per ballot

Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 8.56.46 PM.png

Table 20 shows the distribution of points to each candidate following the removal of a candidate.  Like Table 19, it shows Wilkinson’s growth.  What’s interesting is that Wilkinson actually had more movement in terms of raw votes as he grew through the third, fourth, and fifth ballots than he did in terms of points.  He had over half of the redistributed raw votes in round 3 but only 40% of the points.  In round 5, he had almost 75% of redistributed raw votes but only 62% of redistributed points.  Wilkinson had started out with a high efficiency on the first count, but became less efficient as the ballots wore on.  This is basically a math issue where the support he was receiving on second and third choices were, in many cases, from members in high-member ridings.

BC Liberal leadership: counting the votes and the cheeseburgers

I’m getting quite a few questions on how voting works for the BC Liberal leadership convention.

If you’re a member of the BC Liberal Party, and haven’t registered to vote, you can go here: https://www.bcliberals.com/Leadership/

Voting begins on Thursday morning at 9am (PT) and ends at 5pm (PT) Saturday. FAQs at the Party website.

 

dice.jpg

Six candidates: but in what order?

The complicated part is the counting.

It’s a preferential ballot meaning that you only vote once and you have the opportunity to rank your choices. There are six candidates. There is no downside to filling out your ballot from 1 to 6 – it doesn’t hurt your preferred candidate. In fact, it ensures your vote will count right through to the final ballot if your preferred candidate is eliminated.

In the old days when leaders were picked at delegated leadership conventions, voting delegates in the hall would vote for their candidate. The results of the first ballot would be announced then if no candidate had a majority, there would be a second ballot and everyone would line up again to vote. The bottom candidate would be eliminated.

If you supported the bottom candidate, you could stay in the hall and vote for someone else on the second ballot. Or you could walk out the door, go to McDonald’s, have a cheeseburger, and go home to bed.

That’s what happens if you don’t fill out your preferential ballot. If your #1 preferred candidate is eliminated, and you do not fill out your ballot in terms of your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th choices, then you might as well be out having a cheeseburger when everyone else’s vote is being counted to determine who will be the next leader.

My Dad went to the 1968 Liberal leadership convention. He went there supporting Eric Kierans, who was eliminated on the first ballot. He didn’t go to McDonald’s for a cheeseburger; he stayed and ended up voting for Pierre Trudeau on the fourth and final ballot.

Some folks wistfully remark that it’s not as exciting as the good old days. The preferential ballot lacks the drama of candidates walking the floor between ballots to endorse a rival. In 1976, Sinclair Stevens surprised delegates when he walked over to endorse Joe Clark, creating momentum for his eventual winning candidacy. In 1984, Bob Skelly prevailed amidst complicated floor dynamics to win as a compromise candidate for the BC NDP leadership. In 1986, Bud Smith cemented Bill Vander Zalm’s win when he walked past Grace McCarthy and Brian Smith to endorse the man who many of his supporters preferred as their second choice. Gerard Kennedy delivered mightily for Stephane Dion in the 2006 federal Liberal leadership race propelling Dion to a final ballot victory over Michael Ignatieff.  Hey – delegated conventions elected Joe Clark, Bob Skelly, Bill Vander Zalm, and Stephane Dion. Excitement hardly guarantees long-term success.

In that 1968 Liberal convention that my Dad attended, Paul Hellyer should have walked after the 2nd ballot and waited one ballot too long to influence the outcome despite supporter and cabinet minister Judy LaMarsh imploring him to stop Trudeau: “you’ve got to go to Winters. Don’t let that bastard win it, Paul—he isn’t even a Liberal.” As seen on live TV.

Lamarsh.jpg

Judy LaMarsh and Paul Hellyer: nice hats!

The federal NDP has had its share of convention floor drama. In the 1989 federal NDP contest, CBC mic’d up candidate Simon de Jong, who forgot he was wearing it, exposing viewers to bareknuckle backroom discussions with BC’s Dave Barrett. It was reported that de Jong leaned over to his mother asking, “Mommy, what should I do?” Audrey McLoughlin went on to win. Then there was Svend Robinson who led after the first ballot in the 1995 NDP federal leadership convention. He realized he couldn’t win and dropped out, endorsing the second place candidate Alexa McDonough, who became leader.

svend alexa.jpg

1995: Svend concedes despite finishing first

Sure, old-style conventions could be dramatic, but not necessarily democratic. There’s no perfect system, but at least the current system of universal voting for members allows people from all over BC to participate without barriers of cost and travel. Every member is equal, rather than select delegates wheeling and dealing their votes to the highest bidder.

Another key part of the voting system is that ridings are weighted. Each riding is equal to 100 points for a total of 8700 points (87 ridings * 100). This prevents one region of the province from swamping another. A point is basically the same as the percentage of the vote in that riding. If 200 people vote in the riding of Sasquatch-West and Candidate X gets 70 votes, X will get 35 points (35%).

(In 1993, the BC Liberals chose Gordon Campbell on a purely one member-one vote system. The Executive of the Party proposed the system. Contender Gordon Gibson opposed it and sought changes to make it more regionally balanced. Campbell’s campaign, of which I was the Campaign Director, backed the Executive and the rules passed the two-thirds vote required by one vote. Amazingly, there was no demand for a recount as people were shocked. Six weeks later, Campbell went on to win the leadership vote decisively with about 65% on the first ballot, and would have won under either system, frankly.)

Back to the voting system this weekend, it remains to be seen how many members will ‘leave the hall’ by not completing their ballot. If members only rank their first and second choices, there may be thousands of members that miss the final vote. What happens in that case is that those ballots are removed from the pile.

Using the example above, if the rival Candidate Y received 60 votes in Sasquatch –West, he or she would garner 30 points on the first ballot. But what if Candidate Y was eliminated thereafter from the ballot and his or her supporters did not record second choices? That would reduce the pile of votes in Sasquatch-West from 200 to 140, and, now, Candidate X (still in the race) would go from 35% (70 votes out of 200) to 50% (70 votes out of 140). A candidate doesn’t need to increase his or her support in raw votes to see an increase in his or her points because support would be increasing as a percentage of the overall pile, due to the pile shrinking. Did you get that?

No matter what, there will be 100 points per riding and the winner will need at least 4350+1 votes to win on the final ballot (8700 points divided by half, +1).

Voting ends at 5pm Saturday. Results should be broadcast soon thereafter and they will come in rapidly, count by count . It won’t take long. There will be drama, just not the way it used to be. Instead of hours upon hours of speculation, Saturday’s drama will be very concentrated within a relatively short period of time.

How many counts will it go? The federal Conservative race that elected Andrew Scheer had 14 candidates and went 13 counts. The winner needs a majority. This weekend, if the winner gets a majority while two or more candidates split the rest, it may go four counts or less. It is more likely that this process will require a full five counts to determine a winner.

We’ll see what happens when the votes, and the cheeseburgers, are counted on Saturday night.

 

The Trudeau Liberals unwrap a new seat

Monday’s by-elections can be viewed as a win for the governing Liberals.  They held two seats and won a third from the Conservatives.  In answer to my November 20th post, the voters in South Surrey-White Rock gave like Santa to the Liberals and passed out votes like Scrooge to the Conservatives.

b5kff47cqaeq2op

That present is from South Surrey-White Rock

By-elections are a great opportunity to send a message.  If the government is screwing up, why not vote against them and shake it up?  Evidently, there’s not a lot of voter anger in South Surrey-White Rock.

In Monday’s by-elections, the only riding where the Liberal popular vote actually went up was South Surrey-White Rock, which was the only place the Conservative vote went down.

Screen Shot 2017-12-12 at 10.39.35 AM.png

Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives can take some consolation that they reduced the margin-of-victory in Scarborough-Agincourt from 13.9% to 8.9%, and they scraped themselves off the basement floor in Newfoundland, though they haven’t found the stairs yet.  In Saskatchewan, like Alberta, they ran up the score, which is nice, but not very meaningful.  As for the Liberals, I doubt they are too concerned about the ridings where they slipped.  In all three cases, the result looked inevitable, and tough to motivate voters in that case.

South Surrey-White Rock should sting a bit for the Conservatives.  This was a safe seat in 2011 and for decades before that.  In 2011, a backbench Conservative MP edged the Liberal 53% to 19%.  That’s a remarkable turnaround in six years.

The notion of a Liberal win was unthinkable in the summer of 2015.  Liberal strategists had a hard time believing the numbers they were seeing from that riding, against Dianne Watts no less.  They almost beat her despite sacking their candidate halfway through the campaign.  The Liberals had no history of winning there.  They couldn’t even win in Surrey during Trudeaumania I when they took two-thirds of the seats in BC – and the Liberal candidate was “nursery man” Bill Vander Zalm.  Trudeaumania plus the Zalm?  How could they lose?

Screen Shot 2017-12-12 at 11.03.39 AM.png

So, there has been a change in South Surrey-White Rock and it remains to be seen if it will be a sea change.   Liberals may have a bit of deja vu when it comes to winning federal by-elections in BC.  In 1998, a Reform MP resigned in Port Moody-Coquitlam and, very similar to South Surrey-White Rock, the Liberals ran a popular mayor, Lou Sekora, while the Reform Party ran a parachute candidate from Langley.  Sekora won in a riding the Liberals had not held in a long, long time.  In 2000, a young whippersnapper by the name of James Moore defeated Sekora and went on to hold the seat for 15 years.

Screen Shot 2017-12-12 at 11.39.49 AM.png

Lou Sekora: lost to a young whippersnapper

Let’s not forget about the NDP.  In Monday’s by-elections, their share of vote dropped in all four races.  While none of these seats were NDP targets, they certainly did not demonstrate any grassroots enthusiasm for the new NDP leader.

Congratulations to Gordie Hogg and the Liberals.  We’ll see if success in South Surrey-White Rock is fleeting or not.  Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives did not collapse, on the contrary, they made some incremental progress.  But where it mattered, they could not rally their base to withstand a vigorous effort by the Liberals.  Now that the government is in the back nine of its mandate and showing its resilience, Scheer will not be able to count on the government losing the election – he will have to try to find a way to win it.  A tall order for any Opposition.