Eighth projection

For today's update. We are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 6-7 (0.79 weight)
EKOS - Oct 7-9 (1.00 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 7-9 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 6-9 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 133 (+9, n/c), Lib 82 (-21, -1), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 41 (+12, +2), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, n/c), NDP 6 (+3, +1), CPC 3 (-6, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 12 (+1, -1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 1 (+1, +1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 46 (+6, n/c), Lib 41 (-13, n/c), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+1, +2), NDP 5 (+2, +1), Lib 2 (-3, -1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 24 (+7, +1), NDP 9 (-1, -1), Lib 3 (-6, +1)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

The race remains stable, the widely covered CTV Atlantic interview with Dion last night may cause some final day shifts however.

Elizabeth May has fallen back in today's update, Central Nova shows as: 37.5% NDP, 36.8% Grn.

Tom Mulcair has pulled ahead in Outrement, the model shows that result as: 33.4% NDP, 33.0% Lib.

Today's chart:


I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Seventh projection

For today's update. We are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 6-7 (0.93 weight)
EKOS - Oct 6-8 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.14 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 6-8 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 5-8 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 133 (+9, +3), Lib 83 (-20, -1), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 39 (+10, -3), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, +1)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, n/c), NDP 5 (+2, -1), CPC 3 (-6, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, +1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, n/c)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 46 (+6, n/c), Lib 41 (-13, n/c), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+1, +2), NDP 4 (+1, -1), Lib 3 (-2, -1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 24 (+7, +1), NDP 10 (n/c, -1), Lib 2 (-7, n/c)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

This poll suggests things are beginning to stabilize, with no change in Quebec (for the second day), no change in Ontario and no change or more than 1 seat per party in any other region.

Elizabeth May pulls back into the lead in this update, despite our slightly-revised, slightly-less-favourable formula for her circumstances. The model shows May at 36.7% and the NDP at 35.9%. Due to the Conservative collapse in Atlantic Canada in recent polls, it shows MacKay at 26.7%.

Today for the first time, a crude graphic to show you were the projections have moved since we started a week ago:


I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

In Quotes: The conflicting arguments of Jim Flaherty and the Tories

Jim Flaherty on Corporate Welfare: "I don't believe in corporate welfare or in propping up failing companies," he said, rejecting any sort of direct industrial aid or investment as a response to mill closures in New Brunswick.

[Source: The Telegraph Journal, December 13th, 2007]

Ah, but that was then, this is now: "Conservative Leader Stephen Harper pledged $400-million for the hard-hit aerospace and auto sectors today as he unveiled his relatively meagre campaign platform and tried to dispel the impression that he's done little to respond to fresh economic gloom and market turmoil."

[Source: The Toronto Globe & Mail, October 7, 2008]

Jim Flaherty on Bailing out Banks: "We are not looking at a rescue package for banks," he told reporters. "We are not looking at creating any additional risk for taxpayers."

[Source: The Toronto Globe & Mail, October 9, 2008]

Excuse me, if I don't hold my breath, Mr. Flaherty.

Update

Is it me, or is McKenna starting to sound a lot like another Paul Martiin Jr. Maybe he thinks he can sweep to power on the exact same policy agenda as Martin, the only difference being he will be popular with his party. Now, if only Dion will get out of the way. lol

Update II

Not to worry, it's not a bailout: "the plan was one of the many tools available to government help credit conditions, and shows the Canadian government is acting in advance instead of waiting for a crisis to hit the Canadian financial system."

Can't say I didn't warn ya.

Sixth projection

There is a slight revision to the projection method starting today and going forward. In ridings were a party is not fielding a candidate; rather than ignore the polling fluctuations for the non-contesting party, they will be distributed in the same way that party's 2006 votes were distributed.

For instance, in Central Nova, the Liberals are not running and have endorsed the Greens. To create a baseline for the projection, I distributed 60% of the Liberal vote to the Greens and the remaining 40% proportionally among the Conservatives and New Democrats. Today's polling average shows the Liberals down 3.5% in Atlantic Canada from their 2006 result, so I shave 60% of 3.5% off of the Greens and the balance proportionally off of the other two parties. I will use this method for the other 3 ridings where a party has opted to endorse another candidate today and in future projections.

With that business out of the way, on to today's update. We are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 6-7 (1.00 weight)
EKOS - Oct 5-7 (0.93 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.36 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 5-7 [ON, QC, Atl only] (0.93 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 4-7 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.86 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 130 (+6, -6), Lib 84 (-19, +3), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 42 (+13, +4), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, +4), NDP 6 (+3, +2), CPC 3 (-6, -5), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, n/c)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 46 (+6, +2), Lib 41 (-13, -2), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 19 (-1, -3), NDP 5 (+2, +2), Lib 4 (-1, +1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+6, n/c), NDP 11 (+1, n/c), Lib 2 (-7, n/c)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

Polls show a huge Liberal resurgence in Atlantic Canada, particularly in the Nanos poll which shows them at 50%! Not sure if this is real or a rogue poll combined with a series of polls with high margins of error. We'll see in the coming days.

Polling has otherwise stablized, with the Conservatives moving up from their low yesterday in Ontario and no change at all in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia or the North.

Thanks to our revised formula, and strong numbers for the NDP in the Atlantic, the Greens are now shown to be losing Central Nova by 2.7% to the NDP with Peter MacKay finishing a distant third.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Day 32: Quick hitters are back baby!

Loser: Moi. For stating the "reverse coattail" strategy had no chance for success. Not only did it work in stabilizing Dion's base support, it has now put him in a position where he can bring some of the marginal ridings along for the ride on his own coattails. Yes, I realize there will be a lot of folks out there who will say it had nothing to do with the Liberal strategy and all to do with Harper's own self-inflicted wounds; even so, you still can't discount the fact that the Liberals strategy worked in keeping them around to fight another day.

Policy loser: Conservative platform. Not only is it late coming, there are way to many pictures (some forty in all of Harper photo ops). Anyway, let Macleans' editor Andrew Coyne explain (since I am lock, stock and barrel in agreement): "Much of it is old news, having been unveiled already in the course of the campaign (or indeed announced in previous budgets). Some of it is wildly wrong — adding yet another regional development agency, pouring yet more subsidies into the auto and aerospace sinkholes..." Read more.

Winner: Conservative Peter Mackay for having his mom come out in the paper as a "Raging Granny" and anti-war advocate. There's no question this will help position him as a Tory who was brought up by someone with considerable empathy and understanding. And for someone in a defense portfolio who needs to court Liberals in that riding to win, it's not a bad thing and doesn't hurt. Plus, when your leader is struggling with his own "empathy deficit" at a national level (L. Ian coined the phrase), you need to pull out all the stops. Keep your eyes on nbpolitico's daily polling in Central Nova, this one is definitely going to be close.

Funny, I see Harper is now playing the mom card.

Winner: Obviously Liberal leader Stephane Dion for getting up off the mat and somehow making this thing interesting. Remember, many big name conservatives in 2003 didn't step up to plate and run because they thought Harper would get waxed by juggernaut Paul Martin. Well, could the same thing happen in 2008? Let me tell you, if it does, you can all but kiss a possible Frank McKenna prime ministerial run goodbye as he doesn't have the years to wait it out since he is already in his late 60s. Anyway, what else can be said other than minority governments definitely bite for aspiring leaders.

















Winners: Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and NL Premier Danny Williams. I don't agree with their tactics (that is for sure), but as in love and war, in politics all is fair game and it would seem their very aggressive and negative ABC campaigns are getting through to the electorate in both of their perspective provinces. And with Harper needing to breakthrough big time in Quebec, he can't be pleased with this. Let's hope, for his sake, it doesn't come down to those lost NL seats and the one squandered in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

Losers: CRA pollsters for issuing an obvious rogue poll (and then trying to hide that fact). With federal Liberal support increasing dramatically in every poll over the last week (see Harris/Decima, Nanos, Strategic Counsel's perception numbers), they come out bragging in the Telegraph Journal (who co-sponsored the poll btw) about how their data projects conservatives to pick up seats in New Brunswick. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this scenario pan out just as much as the next Tory, but it's a little hackish to believe that it is so, esdpecially when there is so much data to suggest otherwise. I mean honestly, anyone that would put a great deal of weight on just one week of polling with a week left of critical campaigning, is a little naive to say the least. Time to go to a rolling nightly or a weekly one, CRA. Either that, or stay out of the game when elections come around.

Fifth projection (or yesterday's numbers, today)

Due to technical difficulties, I didn't get yesterday's update posted. Here it is this morning, with another to follow this evening with today's polls. For this projection, I used the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 2-3 (0.64 weight)
EKOS - Oct 4-6 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.43 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 4-6 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.07 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 3-6 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 136 (+12, -3), Lib 81 (-22, +6), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 38 (+9, -3), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 18 (-2, +1), CPC 8 (-1, n/c), NDP 4 (+1, -1), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, n/c)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 44 (+4, -4), Lib 43 (-11, +4), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 22 (+2, -1), Lib 3 (-2, +1), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+6, +2), NDP 11 (+1, -2), Lib 2 (-7, n/c)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

The Conservatives have slipped again, losing 4 seats to Liberals in Ontario bringing that province essentially to a draw. Their losses were however somewhat offset by gains in BC.

The race in Outremont, Quebec remains close, though, for the first time, it hasn't changed hands in a projection. This edition shows the Liberals increasing their lead from 0.3% to 0.37%.

All three new polls in this projection show the Conservatives either tied (1) or behind (2) in Ontario, they retain a 1 seat lead in this projection but that is largely due to their strength in older polling. If the trend continues, the Conservatives are almost certain to lose their Ontario lead in the projection tonight. However, they formed a government with a 14 seat deficit in Ontario last time, unless the bottom really falls out, it seems likely they'll still have some (marginal) gains in Ontario, though the trend would show them still finishing second, just a stronger second than last time.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

A question for readers (repeated)

There is a slight glitch right now for the projection model in those four ridings where a party is not contesting and endorsing another candidate. The base number for those ridings had the non-contesting party at 0, as they should be, but when the polling data is entered, that number moves, sometimes into negative territory.

*new* No one has answered this, so I wanted to show how it would affect the results, the three options are as follows, with the results as of this projection in brackets:

1. Disregard the number for the non-contesting party (Central Nova: Grn 36%, NDP 36%, CPC 34%, Lib -5%) [what I have been doing];
2. Distribute the gain or loss in the same proportion as I did with the 2006 votes (NDP 34%, CPC 33%, Grn 33%); or
3. Distribute the gain or loss to the candidate the non-contesting party has endorsed? (Central Nova: NDP 35%, CPC 34%, Grn 31%)

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

In tough times, great leaders, including Harper, need to be challenged

Full disclosure: I skipped the Canadian English debate on Thursday night to catch the US Vice-Presidential debate (although, I'm sure I wasn't the only one). Anyway, the debate went along quite smoothly IMO for what was billed as a possible shootout by the mainstream media. As well, I thought both veep candidates showed well enough to claim victory at the end of the day. But aside from that, what struck me as most interesting was Joe Biden's response to the moderator's question regarding what the role of the vice president would be? He said:

With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice.

And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.

It's interesting that Senator Biden said that "he wouldn't be afraid to tell him [Barack] if he disagreed." Why? Because that's exactly the kind of veep Obama said he was looking for before the caucus season even started back in December. His exact words were:

I want somebody who can be an outstanding president, should something happen to me. I want somebody who’s got integrity and I want somebody who has independence. I want somebody who will tell me when they disagree with me. [...] I don’t like having a lot of ‘yes’ people around me who are just telling me what I want to hear all the time.

I agree wholeheartedly as all great leaders need someone who has the independence and strength to push them out of their comfort zone from time-to-time. That said, with a few pollsters indicating that the Tory numbers are on the decline both nationally and in Quebec/Ontario, has the Prime Minister done himself a disservice by surrounding himself with "yes people", not to mention the fact that he has limited a talented caucus to mere talking points at a time when the country requires him to be challenged? I don't know about you, but I see this as a major problem for him moving forward. Or maybe I'm mistaken, and he does have someone close to him with the gonads to set him straight on both policy and strategy. Anybody willing to give it a shot on just who that particular person may be?

Quick hint: it's not Spector, Brodie, Kinsella or Flannagan. That is for sure.

Fourth projection

For today's update, we are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 2-3 (0.79 weight)
EKOS - Oct 3-5 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.57 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 3-5 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.21 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 2-5 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 139 (+15, -10), Lib 75 (-28, +5), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 41 (+12, +5), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 17 (-3, n/c), CPC 8 (-1, -1), NDP 5 (+2, +1), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, +1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, -1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 48 (+8, -9), Lib 39 (-15, +7), NDP 19 (+7, +2)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+3, n/c), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c), Lib 2 (-3, n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+4, +1), NDP 13 (+3, +3), Lib 2 (-7, -4)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 1 (n/c, +1), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c), CPC 0 (n/c, -1)

A few remarks...

The Conservatives have, after enjoying a few strong days of polling, slipped back essentially to where they stood in my first projection 4 days ago (that projection showed 142-72-49-42-3-0), far from majority territory.

The race in Outremont, Quebec is one of the closest and volatile in this election according to the model. It has changed hands in every single projection so far. Presently, it shows as going Liberal by 0.3%.

In Ontario, both Nanos and Harris-Decima (two of our three new polls), show the Conservatives slipping into second place which has hurt their totals there. The NDP have also surged to 19 seats, thanks to a projected-near-sweep of Northern Ontario.

Despite a resurgance yesterday, the Liberals have slipped back to just two seats in British Columbia.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

A question for readers (repeated)

There is a slight glitch right now for the projection model in those four ridings where a party is not contesting and endorsing another candidate. The base number for those ridings had the non-contesting party at 0, as they should be, but when the polling data is entered, that number moves, sometimes into negative territory.

Should I:

1. Disregard the number for the non-contesting party (what I have been doing);
2. Distribute the gain or loss in the same proportion as I did with the 2006 votes; or
3. Distribute the gain or loss to the candidate the non-contesting party has endorsed?

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Third projection

For today's update, we are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 2-3 (1.00 weight)
EKOS - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.79 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.79 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 1-3 [ON, QC, Atl only] (0.93 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.43 weight)
Harris-Decima -Sep 30-Oct 3 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.86 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 149 (+25, -3), Lib 70 (-33, +3), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 36 (+7, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 17 (-3, n/c), CPC 9 (n/c, n/c), NDP 4 (+1, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 12 (+1, -1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 1 (+1, +1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 57 (+17, -1), Lib 32 (-22, +1), NDP 17 (+5, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+3, +1), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c), Lib 2 (-3, -1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 20 (+3, -3), NDP 10 (n/c, -1), Lib 6 (-3, +4)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 1 (+1, n/c), Lib 1 (-1, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

In the Atlantic, after a few days of roller-coaster, the numbers seem to have stablized. Elizabeth May stays ahead in Central Nova, though by a more narrow margin; May is now 2.08% ahead of MacKay.

In Quebec, this projection shows Mulcair pulling back into the lead for the NDP Outremont by only 0.99%.

The Liberals have surged back to nearly their 2006 results in BC after flirting with a wipeout in the first few projections.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

A question for readers

There is a slight glitch right now for the projection model in those four ridings where a party is not contesting and endorsing another candidate. The base number for those ridings had the non-contesting party at 0, as they should be, but when the polling data is entered, that number moves, sometimes into negative territory.

Should I:

1. Disregard the number for the non-contesting party (what I have been doing);
2. Distribute the gain or loss in the same proportion as I did with the 2006 votes; or
3. Distribute the gain or loss to the candidate the non-contesting party has endorsed?

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.