Join the new world

I will provide data and then add some thoughts about it.

Parties
Democratic Action League (DAL)/ North Atlantic Reformation Coalition: (NARC)
Canadian Progressive Front (CPF)/ Canadian Empire Party: (CEP)
Canadian Social Democrats (CSD)/ Canadian National coalition (CNC)
Canadian Paradox Party: (CPP)
Union Nationale: (UN)

Interesting how the top three parties all seeked coalotions with smaller parties, whether it was DAL with a regional party (Nova Scotia and NARC), The CPF with an ideologically similar party (CEP) or the CSD and CNC, which i would think was probably part needed candidates to run and somewhat similiar positions on issues. The party that would have benefited the most from such deals, the CPP, did not do so, for which i have no real explanation. Certainly overall, the large parties find it more efficient i would think to make these deals, especially in lower population regions, or to concentrate party votes.

Members (Get out the vote)
DAL: 603 (49.8😵
CPF: 306 (77.8😵
CS😨 239 (74.1😵
CPP: 187 (71.1😵
UN: 293 (62.1😵
average (67.0😵

As can be seen, DAL is by far the largest party, almost double the next party. The CPF and UN have around 300 members, with the CPP and CSD around 200 or so. What is more interesting is their success to get voters to the polls, which the above percentages show. Some caveats are the fact the top three parties had coalition agreements, which means actual get out the vote percentages are slightly lower. I think what the data says is that DAL's advantage is not as pronounced as the raw member totals would suggest, although the below numbers show they still lead in absolute votes. It is partially a function of two clickers joining and dieing in the top party, and perhaps just underutility by DAL leadership, although only in the sense that even more seats perhaps should have been won. what else is intersting is how close the three other national parties were, getting roughly 3/4 of members to vote, which is a respectable number, and that the CSD and CPF are probably closer to 705 after the help from other parties is considered. The UN on the other hand seems to have issues as well, which may be the result of francophone two clickers joining and dieing, as well as prehaps internal issues. The UN according to this and other data seems to have some problems in this election.

Total votes (Vote Share)
DAL 300 (29.1😵
CPF 238 (23.1😵
CSD 177 (17.2😵
CPP 133 (12.9😵
UN 182 (17.7😵

Seats Won (😵
DAL 12 (30😵
CPF 9 (22😵
CSD 8 (20😵
CPP 6 (15😵
UN 5 (13😵

The data suggests that in a national sense, DAL and CPF basically got the percentage of seats they would have been expected to get, with the CSD and CPP slightly overpreforming at the expense of the UN. This probably can be explained by the UN dominance of Quebec, where many of their votes were cast, as they took almost 50% of the vote share their, but could only win 2 seats. The CSD and the CPP especially benefited from vote efficiency and having less candidates running, allowing them to perform better in seats than vote share. they also did not have vote drain like Citizen B or Jbdivinus, like DAL and CPF did.

# Candidates % candidates that won
DAL 26 (46.2😵
CPF 22 (40.9😵
CSD 19 (42.1😵
CPP 12 (50.0😵
UN 19 (26.3😵
average (41.1😵

Unsurprisingly, DAL ran the most candidates, CPF second and so on. The difference in number of Candidates is not all that surprising either, but the percentage of those that won is very interesting.
the data shows a conversion rate on average of roughly 40%. What is intersting is that DAL may not dominate in votes cast like it should, but it still manages to convert close to half the seats, although the more votes you have the more seats you should probably convert, although as i will show below efficiency of votes is important as well. What is really surprising is that the CPP manages to convert half their seats, by running 7 less candidates then the next largest party, which allows for more focused vote targeting. The flipside is how awful the UN is at converting candidates to seats, which means that they probably overextended themselves, especially since they are primarily a regional party. the lesson might be to run a number of candidates which your party can election at least 40% to 50% of them, otherwise votes are wasted.

Votes for winning candidates %
DAL (85😵
CPF (81.5😵
CSD (78.5😵
CPP (75.9😵
UN (74.7😵
average (79.1😵

Votes for losing candidates %
DAL (15😵
CPF (18.5😵
CSD (21.5😵
CPP (24.1😵
UN (25.3😵
average (20.9😵

Adding 5 vote buffer, after which votes are deemed “wasted” plus votes for Losers %
DAL (45.7😵
CPF (42😵
CSD (32.2😵
CPP (33.8😵
UN (58.2😵
average (42.4 😵

I will explain the last table later. The first two tables say to what extent parties manage to vote for winning candidates or not for losing ones. The average is around 20% of votes for losers, to be blunt, with DAL and the CPF doing better i this regard and the CPP and UN doing slightly worse, with the CSD in the middle. However, when you consider that the 50th vote for Citizen B was probably not needed for anything other than his ego (jokes), then those extraneous votes could be considered wasted. While i used a 5 vote buffer, afterwards I thought that was probably too liberal and a 10 vote buffer would have been more effective. Nevertheless, after adding these votes to the equation, it appears as though the CPF and DAL are not nearly as efficient as it would first appear, and that the CPP and CSD are in fact much better in this regard. Again the UN, a result of massive vote waste in Quebec and running too many candidates, have mostly 60% of their votes used inefficiently.

Overall i think the data i provided is useful but does not tell the whole story. For one, non-political players voted, but knowing how they voted for cannot be determined by this analysis. The issue of voting for other parties other than your own, or where someone voted when their party was not represented cannot really be determined by the data. Other things like how much someone advertised and regional issues, and how they got out the vote themselves, or personal popularity are not really looked at. Take the data for what it is, a helpful tool for explaining why things happened as they did. If people woukld like to see my methodology, or more precise data and analysis, message me and i will do my best to answer any questions. I am hoping to do this for all elections from now on, but i would be willing to private analysis for a fee, such as polling or surveying or more specific analysis of the data in general. finally, in the future i would like to have help in data collection to help speed up analysis and provide more indepth analysis, so if interested, again just message me.