Posts
The Mike Harris PC government went to the polls on June 3, 1999, having been elected to a majority government in June 1995. One striking curiosity about the two election results is that the Tories won just as great a vote share in 1999 as in 1995 but their share of seats in the legislature was smaller. They garnered 63.1 percent of the legislative seats in 1995, 57.3 percent in 1999 - a consequence of strategic voting. I drafted a 17-page paper on the topic after the election. I discuss some of my conclusions below.
Two
Ontario
June
3, 1999
|
|||||
PC
|
L
|
NDP
|
Others
|
Total
|
|
Votes
|
1,978,059
|
1,751,472
|
550,807
|
109,869
|
4,390,207
|
Percent
|
45.1%
|
39.9%
|
12.5%
|
2.5%
|
100.0%
|
Seats
|
59
|
35
|
9
|
103
|
|
Seats
- In %
|
57.3%
|
34.0%
|
8.7%
|
0.0%
|
100.0%
|
June
8, 1995
|
|||||
1995
|
PC
|
L
|
NDP
|
Others
|
Total
|
Votes
|
1,870,110
|
1,291,326
|
854,163
|
142,771
|
4,158,370
|
In
%
|
44.97%
|
31.05%
|
20.54%
|
3.43%
|
100.0%
|
Seats
|
82
|
30
|
17
|
1
|
130
|
Seats
- In %
|
63.1%
|
23.1%
|
13.1%
|
0.8%
|
100.0%
|
The PCs had made a lot of enemies by 1999 - teachers, nurses, trade unionists, residents of Toronto, etc. The issues made strategic voting a theme of the election even though it was largely avoided by the parties themselves. Several strategic voting organizations inserted themselves into the campaign regardless. I think their impact was minimal to non-existent, but their mere presence reflected the real grassroots consciousness of strategic voting that had developed. That consciousness did have an impact.
In eight ridings where PC candidates were defeated, strategic voting appears to be the key factor which accounts for the outcome. Of the eight PC losses, one was to a New Democrat, the other seven to Liberals.
It was not enough to change government. Simply put, about 45 percent was too close to 50 for the combination of opposition votes to achieve the objective of preventing a PC majority. But there were also nine 'near misses' or outright strategic voting 'failures' that, if they had gone the other way, would have left the government holding less than half the legislature.
Strategic voting demonstrated real potential.
Can strategic voting play a significant role in the 2018 election?
I think the answer is yes. However, what will determine its success will be the level of support for the Conservatives. As the 1999 outcome demonstrated if the Conservative vote is high enough strategic voting, which will inevitably be imperfect, won't succeed. The current PC average in the CBC poll tracker is 41.1 percent and they have a large lead over the NDP currently in second place. Even so, Doug Ford, like his brother before him, is a deeply divisive figure. If anything, he is even more likely than Mike Harris to trigger a coalescing of opposition forces into a strategic vote that could finally succeed this year. To me a strategic voting success in this context is one where a relatively high PC vote is overcome by strategic voting. If PC support collapses (as it did in the 2015 federal election) that is a different phenomenon.
In the eight ridings where strategic voting worked in 1999 the winning percentage ranged from a low of 44.4 percent to 50.6 percent. The losing PC candidates in all but one case obtained more than 40 percent. That is what we should expect to see if strategic motivation brings opposition voters together around one candidate.
Recent polls suggest it may be the NDP this year that plays the role of appropriate strategic alternative overall. That would mean a dramatic departure from the voting patterns of 2014. NDP support then was uneven, very weak in some places, much stronger in others. To be successful the NDP vote would have rise dramatically in some regions where they were weak last time, taking over from the Liberals the role of principal opponent to the Conservatives. It would have to have a wave like character, certainly a possibility.
A shift of this magnitude would make it difficult to predict individual ridings. My seat forecasting model did not project the 1999 outcome accurately because the pattern of voting changed greatly from 1995. It would be the same this time compared to 2014, not just for my efforts but for others as well.
The turnout last time was low. It would not surprise me if Ford Nation motivated quite a few new voters to turn out for the first time to support them. Intense dislike of Ford could do the same on the other side of the equation.
I will have more on strategic voting in subsequent posts.
*As a footnote the term 'strategic' is not really the precise terminology, 'tactical' would be better but I use the more commonly employed language here and will continue to do so.
