Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Support With Ex Officios

Just for the record, counting the ex officio delegates to the convention, these are the numbers:

IGNATIEFF 28.0%
RAE 17.5%
DION 15.4%
KENNEDY 15.4%
DRYDEN 4.8%
BRISON 4.2%
VOLPE 4.0%
HALL FINDLAY 0.9%
(undeclared) 9.8%

11 Comments:

At 10/11/2006 10:38 PM, Blogger Steve V said...

How exactly does Ignatieff go down 2% when you count ex-officos?? Care to reveal your methodology.

 
At 10/12/2006 12:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not hard. If the ex-officios are voting more with the others or are undecided, Iggy's share of the total goes down.

Simple math, really.

 
At 10/12/2006 12:29 AM, Blogger Alter Boys said...

Dear Clear Grit,

Actually, it reflects more or less the Super Weekend results.So if the undecided or undeclared ex-officios vote according to specs., those numbers make sense to me.
D.

 
At 10/12/2006 1:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

these results are wrong. ignatieff's numbers (even if all neutral ex-officios go to candidates aside from him) will still be above 30.9 percent. This is misleading and malicious information. Failure to provide methodology proves as such.

 
At 10/12/2006 11:06 AM, Blogger DPW said...

I, too, would like to know the source. The party website hasn't updated the results and still shows 34 ridings to come. And I don't know how anyone could know how the ex officios will vote unless they have publicly endorsed a candidate. I doubt the rules require MPs and Senators to declare their support.

If Ryan is on to something here, it certainly goes against most of the pundits, expectations.

 
At 10/12/2006 11:14 AM, Blogger grit heart said...

Ryan has just taken the numbers as printed in the Hill Times of MP's and Senators.

With this morning's update on the ticker, Iggy loses abit and Rae gains.

 
At 10/12/2006 5:29 PM, Blogger Clear Grit said...

This is misleading and malicious information. Failure to provide methodology proves as such.

Oh. You're an asshole. Alright, I can deal with that. But your statement is bunk. The reason I didn't provide a clear methodology was because the numbers are available for all to see. Here's where I got them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex-officio_delegates_to_the_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_convention%2C_2006
I just removed the "neutrals."
Also, a bunch of new numbers came in today, so that changed them around a bit.

It's crap like this that mades political discourse so unappealing sometimes. Think about it. I was just accused of deliberately and maliciously spreading misinformation. By a member of my own party, nonetheless! This is not healthy discussion.

Oh, and by the way, the numbers that came in today actually drop Ignatieff LOWER than I had him.

Also, it should be fairly obvious that with ex officios counted, the number of undeclareds goes WAY up, so OBVIOUSLY Iggy's support is going to go down. Fucking tool...

 
At 10/12/2006 11:28 PM, Blogger Steve V said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10/12/2006 11:29 PM, Blogger Steve V said...

Wrong! From the site statistics, Iggy has around 30% of the declared ex-officos. To go down 2% overall, based on the 15% share of the delegates that the ex-officos represent, Ignatieff would have to score almost no support with ex-officos, which he clearly doesn't You can get upset, but your math is horrible here. These numbers are simply not credible.

 
At 10/13/2006 9:24 AM, Blogger Cerberus said...

Your calculations don't really stand up, I'm afraid.

Undeclared ex-officios still vote. To have any of the candidates (they all go down in your chart) go down seems to me to totally ignore that.

An accurate analysis would either: (a) allocate some percentage of the undeclared to each candidate based upon some estimate (for example, based upon DSM results or projecting out based on the declared ex-officios) or (b) note the number of undeclareds but not include them in the tabulation of the percentages.

To simply put up numbers without addressing the undeclareds makes the chart somewhat unhelpful for most purposes.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:08 PM, Blogger Clear Grit said...

With respect... are you blind? Included in that list is the entry "(undeclared) 9.8%." I can't very well predict WHO those 9.8% are going to vote for, even if lots of them are rumoured to support Iggy. I'm not omniscient. And for the record, no one here is, either.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home