Egyptian elections draw to a messy close

Opposition parties in Egypt are complaining about excessive police intimidation today at polling stations, according to a Reuters report.

Another round of voting is expected next Wednesday (7 December) in those seats where no candidate has secured a majority.

Update: Report of fatal shooting here.

Canada poll suggests a tight race

(via Instapundit)

Ed Morrisey has analysis of AP-Ipsos poll which he compares to a private Robbins Research poll.

Both parties [Liberal and Conservative] get 31% of the national vote, and NDP picks up 18%. BQ gets 14%, all of it from Quebec.

However, the details have to disturb Liberals who hope to return to power in the next Commons. Their support base in Ontario appears to have seriously eroded. Earlier polls show that the Liberals once enjoyed a double-digit lead in their power base. Now that lead has collapsed into a statistical tie with the Conservatives, 37%-35%. The NDP appears to have taken advantage of Liberal slippage, moving up to 21% support in the province. The Tories now outstrip the Liberals in British Columbia, where the Liberals had made inroads in provincial voting last March; the Tories have a 34%-28% advantage on the West Coast province. Liberals only have an outright plurality in the Maritimes; they lead the Tories 24-7 in Quebec but get trounced by Conservative partner Bloc Quebecois, 58-24, showing that the Liberals can expect to lose seats in the region most touched by Adscam.

It begins to look like an interesting contest.

Chavez wins

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Most of Venezuela's main opposition parties are boycotting legislative elections on Sunday that could allow President Hugo Chavez to consolidate his self-proclaimed socialist revolution.

Read the whole story here.

Round up of Canadian election news

A slip-up by Conservative leader Stephen Harper.

Unforeseen loophole? Heh!

But it appears that the major parties (especially the Liberals, who benefit from an abundance of support from corporations and wealthy individual donors Â) stand to gain the most from the unforseen[sic] wrinkle in the elections act.
Andrew Mills, The Toronto Star

The agonies of democratic choice, by a Canadian blogger.

Finally, Mark Steyn has a competition for election watchers.

Canadian election set for January 23

Reported by Fox News:

The election will be held for all 308 seats in the lower House of Commons. The seats in the upper Senate are appointed.

On Monday, the Conservative Party teamed up with the New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois parties to bring down the government, claiming Martin's ruling Liberal Party had lost its moral authority. Recent polls have given the Liberals a slight lead over the Conservatives, with the New Democrats in third place.

The same surveys suggest the Bloc Quebecois would sweep the French-speaking province of Quebec, making a majority government unlikely no matter which party wins the most seats.

Tradesports has the Liberals firm favourites, but slipping. At the moment, details of the corruption scandal that has brought down the government are largely unreported in Canada, thanks to a gagging order issued by a judge. With seven weeks for the more lurid details to circulate the blogs and spread by word of mouth, I'd say the Liberals' strategy will backfire.

The real chance for Democrats in 2006

The RealClear Politics Blog has the lowdown on the approval ratings of U.S. Governors (SurveyUSA did the polling).

If the figures quoted don't shift much in the next few months, we could be looking at a bloodbath for the Republicans in the gubernatorial elections.

California, New York, Ohio and Texas are the biggest serious opportunities for Democrats. With the highly popular Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Republican) standing down due to term-limit constraints, the Democrats will not get a better chance to sweep the biggest states for years.

All is not gloom for the GOP. Six Democrats due for re-election as Governors next year are currently polling less than 50%. One other (in Iowa) has chosen not to seek re-election. Most are in states that were narrow contests in the 2004 presidential election.

California opportunity for Democrats

Next Tuesday (December 6th) sees the second round of a special election (by-election) in the 48th congressional district of California, following the appointment on June 2nd by President George W. Bush of Christopher Cox to the position of Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board (S.E.C.).

The Republican candidate, John Campbell seems best placed to win, as he scored 45.5% of the first round vote. An American Independent candidate came a distant second with 14.8% and the Democrat Steve Young, managed a pitiful 8.7%. A Libertarian and a Green Party candidate will complete the line-up for the run-off. Unusually for a two-round election, in California the leading candidates of all the parties in the first round go through to the second round, instead of the more commonly used method of taking the top two candidates only.

So far, so good for Republicans. The problem lies in the announcement this week that Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham has resigned his seat in Congress following his guilty plea on charges of bribery, tax evasion, mail fraud and wire fraud. He was first elected to Congress in 1990 and was serving his eighth term as a member of the House of Representatives. The Congressional seat in question is the 50th district of California, which covers the County of San Diego.

As these elections returns show from 2004, there is a sizeable Democratic vote in San Diego. If one in five Republican voters stays at home in disgust with "Duke's" ethical performance, the Democrats have a chance of picking up a seat they would otherwise not really compete for. In 2004, the presidential election would tend to have encouraged Republicans to come out and vote, whilst the comparative safety of California as a Democrat stronghold (in presidential elections at least) might have made some of their voters complacent.

Normally, I'd say that a campaign push by the Governor or even the President would be useful. However, apart from helping with fundraisers, neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor President George W. Bush would necessarily be a positive influence on this election. The recent presidential effort in Virginia for instance did raise a lot of money but failed to change the outcome. In fact, even hosting lavish fundraisers might cause a problem, given the circumstances in which this election has been provoked.

At this time, I still think it would be wildly optimistic for the Democrats to win control of either chamber in Congress. But if they keep holding their Governorships, and pick away at the Republican lead in the House of Representatives, they may hang on until 2008, when the Republicans will be defending large numbers of Senate seats, and they have as yet no clear cut presidential candidate.

[hat tip to The Green Papers]

The Guardian says...

2005:Blogged, gets a review in the Guardian's online newspaper edition. Tim Worstall's book reprinted my posting on this site of "Operation Clark County".

It's nice to know that my criticism of a bungled attempt to win the 2004 Presidential election for Democratic Senator John Kerry, does not prejudice Guardian reviewer Jane Perrone.

However, I bet someone at The Grauniad is smiling: 2005:Blogged's index contains a misspelling of my name.

Elections around the world in 2006

For democracy nerds everywhere, here's a list of countries where elections are expected to be held at national or State level in 2006. I've included two proposed referenda on the E.U. constitution, although neither are likely at present: the British government has declared the constitution in its present form as not worth putting to the vote and the Czech government won't hold a referendum until everyone else has. There are local elections planned in other countries amnd I'm sure I've missed a few anyway, but then Wikipedia missed out Angola and Israel when I looked.

Angola (possible)
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic (Referendum EU constitution)
Fiji
Finland
Israel
Italy
Peru
Ukraine (Parliament)
U.K. (Referendum on EU constitution)
U.S.A. (House of Representatives, Senate and gubernatorial elections)

Updates as I get them.

Update
Wikipedia (see above) now shows the Israeli election, but not the Angolan. Also we both missed the Palestinian Authority legislative elections in January 2006.

The fact that the Palestinian Authority's own website doesn't have any details on the election timetable does not help. From the Australian parliament's website comes the following: "President Abbas has announced that it will be held on January 25 2006".

Israeli election date no later than March 28

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has asked President Moshe Katsav to dissolve the Knesset (Israel's unicameral or single-chamber parliament). Mr Sharon has also announced that he is leaving Israel's right-wing Likud party to form a new political movement aimed at the political centre of Israeli politics. Meanwhile, President Katsav has proposed a date of "no later" than March 28 2006 for elections.

The Knesset can vote to set a different date for the election, and my instant gut feeling is that it might not suit either Likud or Labour to go along with a snap election as both parties will have recently changed leaders and both may be wary of giving Mr Sharon the benefit of a short election campaign. (I wouldn't in their shoes, but then I'm not hired by any of the parties to do their campaign strategy, so what do they know!)

The fractious nature of Israel's proportional representation system makes such Mr Sharon's move difficult to predict. Small and often extreme political parties tend to hold disproportionate bargaining power in the formation of a coalition government. Mr Sharon appears to be calculating that he is better off outside Likud and offering to support either of the main two parties (Labour being the left-wing party), in exchange for a moderate position towards the Palestinian Authority.

In America or in the U.K., such a move would be a simple case of political suicide. However, with a proportional representation system, it's in the hands of the party horsetraders... after the next election.

Angola may hold general election in 2006

The Angolan government has publicly stated in the past 24 hours that it aspires to organising a general election during 2006.

However, the tone of Edeltrudes Costa (the Deputy Minister of Territory Administration) speaking to a press gathering yesterday was more hopeful than confident.

Finland's presidential election January 2006

The first round of voting for the presidential election in Finland is scheduled for 15 January 2006. The date is chosen as being the third Sunday in January.

The system is identical to that used in France and the State of Louisiana in the U.S.A. - if a candidate fails to win a majority of the votes cast, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. The run-off - if required - will take place on 29 January 2006.

Election Watch ambition

In case readers are wondering why the occasional foray into elections outside the U.S., (Canada, Ukraine [and here], Palestinian Authority, U.K.) I'm putting together a database of all election contests at national level around the world.

I'm concentrating first on countries whose election systems I am most familiar with, or that spring up in the news: Europe, U.S., Central Asia, Middle East. So unless I get requests, don't expect any particular method in the forays into new countries. For now, at least.

Are the Democrats celebrating the right things?

The Democrats are excited. Not without just cause. But perhaps about the wrong things.

The present unpopularity of President George W. Bush is causing Democratic commentators to dream of capturing both Houses of Congress in 2006, as the prelude to a Democrat victory for the presidency in 2008. I'd say such forecasts are way premature, if not outright utopian.

Where the Democrats can take considerable satisfaction is in the three gubernatorial elections of 2005. I'm including the recounted and court-challenged Washington state election, as well as Tuesday night's more orderly elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

The was every reason to fear that the Republicans could win all three, one by judicial review (Washington), one because of scandals affecting local Democrats (New Jersey), and one by simply not having as good a candidate as the previous one (Virginia). This would have left the Democrats with 19 Governors to the Republicans' 31.

So 2005 is an excellent year for the Democrats in terms of containing the Republicans, given that there have been no opportunities for making electoral gains so far.

Next year's Congressional elections are unlikely to see any change of control for purely technical reasons. The House of Representatives is showing a falling number of truly competitive seats (28 according to Charlie Cook [see "Political Dashboard"]). The Republicans only need to win three (they currently hold 17 of them) to retain control of the House.

In the Senate, another bad tactical situation exists for the Democrats. Last year they were defending 19 Senate seats to 15 Republican, the Democrats promptly made a net loss of four seats. In 2006, the Democrats will be defending 17 Senate seats (plus the Independent seat of Jim Jeffords in Vermont). The Republicans will only be defending 15 seats and would need to lose at least a third of them to lose control of the Senate. At this stage, I don't see this as likely.

Where the Democrats really have chances are in the gubernatorial elections. No fewer than 36 States are due to elect a Governor in November 2006. Only 14 are Democrats, and a staggering 22 are Republicans. Here's were the opportunity to do some real damage lies.

California, Florida, New York and Texas are the big four states with 147 electoral college votes for the presidential elections in 2006 and 2010. All four presently have Republican governors who are up for re-election. Two of them, Jeb Bush in Florida and George Pataki in New York will not be seeking re-election. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in California during a special election in 2003, he would do extremely well at this stage to win a primary and general election. That leaves Texas.

Among the other states up for election there are plenty of chances for both sides. For the party in opposition nationally, this is the kind of scenario campaigners need.

A reasonable set of goals for 2006 would seem to be to make whatever gains in the House of Representatives are possible. In the Senate to come away with any increase would be a satisfactory outcome (the real chance for change will be in 2008, when 19 Republican senators face the voters). But in the gubernatorial contests the target has to be to win back at least California and New York, and pick off several other states. A majority of the Governors should be the goal of the Democrats for next year.

Meanwhile, of course we have the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. At this stage I can't see him failing to be nominated to the Supreme Court bench, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Judge Alito won't have to be a hardline conservative to tilt the balance of the court away from liberalism. In the long run, that may be the biggest election of the year.

Canada limps towards general election

Canada's minority Liberal government is limping towards a general election either around Christmas or early next year according to this report in the Toronto Globe and Mail.

The fact that the Liberals are expected to win most seats is no doubt limiting the ambition of opposition parties to force the issue.

Democratic Party holds Virginia

Tim Kaine has convincingly won the election for Governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia last night, defeating his Republican opponent by nearly six percentage points. The result will undoubtedly give some cheer to Democrats, who retain both [link to New Jersey results] Governorships up for election in 2005. With nine precincts yet to report in Virginia, the results show [hat-tip to The Green Papers]:

TM Kaine 1,019,206 votes (51.71%)
JW Kilgore 907,039 votes (46.02%)
Others (including write-ins) 44,705 (2.27%)
Voter turnout 1,970,950 (44.27)
Precincts reporting 2417 out of 2426 (99.63% of votes confirmed)

Provisional figures suggest that a swing of about 0.5% to Democrats has occured, although late returns could affect this analysis.

I must admit that this is an impressive result, which should avoid the acrimony of the Washington State poll last year that I have written about ad nauseam here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Mark Warner, the outgoing Democratic holder of the Governorship in Virginia, was thought to be the perfect candidate for the Democrats in that state, with his relatively conservative outlook and running an administration considered to be among the best, if not the best in the United States. His successor has increased the Democrat lead, albeit with a slightly reduced share of the vote.

On the one hand, Mark Warner's position as challenger to Hillary Clinton is enhanced. Virginia along with the recapture of the two states (Iowa and New Mexico)lost by Senator John Kerry in last year's presidential election would be sufficient to win the presidential election for the Democrats. Governor Warner did campaign for his successor Tim Kaine, just as President George W. Bush campaigned (and very successfully fundraised) for Jerry Kilgore.

On the other hand, the more Tim Kaine is perceived to have won the election on his own merits, the less necessary Mark Warner becomes.

Watch out for Hillary Clinton fans talking up the merits of Tim Kaine!

My own view (given that I got this result wrong) is that Mark Warner's status as the conservative Democrat candidate is enhanced, at the expense of Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennessee) among others.

All of a sudden though, we're looking at a clutch of effective Democratic Party Governors, and for the time being, I don't see the Republican candidate with the same background, unless Jeb Bush (Florida) makes a run, and one has to wonder if being the brother and the son of two presidents isn't too much of a good thing!

Voting machine, Party machine?

Amy Alkon discusses a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office into the opportunity for fraud using voting machines.

Her conclusion is that the winner must have stolen the election, which I think isn't proven beyond resonable doubt (see the first comment by Radwaste who takes a similar line). What is clear however is that my views of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 (which resulted in a narrow Democratic Party victory there) are echoed by critics of the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 (although the margin of victory for the Republican candidate there was several orders of magnitude greater).

As far as voting machines are concerned, I see them as a solution to yesterday's problem: "Hanging chads" anyone? It's a classic "Willetts".

What's wrong with a piece of paper with a box next to each name, and the voter marks "X"?

Even the best polls underestimate Republican vote

Rasmussen Reports, the U.S. pollster has a self-congratulatory article about its polling for the 2004 presidential election.

It is true that Rasmussen forecast the overall result in terms of the popular vote, getting within half a percent of President George Bush's score and even closer with Senator John Kerry's.

However, is it really clever to publish a list of 25 states that shows that Rasmussen underestimated George W. Bush's vote in 23 of them? With only New Mexico spot on and New Jersey the only state overestimated for the Republican candidate?

I would have a lot more time for opinion polls if in a tight race the over- and underestimates showed more consistency. As it is I expect polls to underestimate Republican voting figures, which is why commentators may believe that I'm biased against Democrats.

According to Matthew Dowd, Bush's campaign strategist: "Scott's [Rasmussen] polling data was dead on this election. Both nationally and at the state level, his numbers were hard to beat."

Antoine Clarke's Election Watch in print

Tim Worstall has asked for permission to republish my posting about Operation Clark County in a book about blogging.

This book is called "2005: Blogged", and is apparently available through Amazon.co.uk (not the U.S. site). Launch date is November 18.

Coincidentally, I should be travelling to the U.S. on that date. One of my stops (I hope) will be to Clark County. I would like to find out if the Guardian ever did get round to paying for their copy of the Clark County electoral register!

New Jersey and Virginia Governor contests tighten in final week

The news from Virginia is that the opinion polls are showing a close race for the governorship with Democratic Party candidate Tim Kaine the leader. This represents a turnaround since my last posting, when I forecast a Republican victory in the "Old Dominion".

In off-year elections (especially perhaps for elections occurring the year after a Presidential election) turnout is everything. I note that the online bookies still rate Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore as the favourite, whereas the pollsters seem to have made up their minds for Mr Kaine.

I'm going to stick with my forecast of a Republican gain in Virginia, partly because this was a state that Democrats and pollsters said would be close this time last year, before producing an eight percentage point lead for President George W. Bush.

In New Jersey we see a state that in gubernatorial contests has often been competitive (indeed the last Governor of New Jersey to be elected, as opposed to nominated by the State Senate was Republican Christine Whitman). Last year the polls for the presidential election showed a far closer result than was in fact the case, with Democratic candidate U.S. Senator John Kerry winning by nearly seven percentage points.

The online bookies are clear in backing Jon Corzine, the Democratic candidate with odds in the region of 90 percent. The pollsters however aren't so sure. Republican candidate Doug Forrester has not come within four percentage points of his opponent in 32 of 33 opinion polls.

I'm also sticking with a Democratic Party hold for New Jersey, but Forrester's odds are so bad on Tradesports that it might be worth a bet. You could win nearly seven times your stake, when I last looked.