On oversimplification

Like most Canadian political junkies, I'm a big fan of the work of Eric at Three Hundred Eight in compiling poll results and modeling the possible electoral outcomes. But I'll use one of Eric's recent posts to highlight one of the main problems that arises where analysts oversimplify the effect of a particular seat distribution rather than acknowledging the place of the House of Commons as a whole.

Here's how Eric analyzes a "best-case scenario" (i.e. highest possible seat count) for the Liberals which would result in party standings of 127 Lib, 111 Con, 51 Bloc, 19 NDP:

As for the Liberals, their best case scenario is the thing the party has been hoping for since being defeated in 2006: a return to government.
...
It's generally the same size of caucus that Paul Martin won in 2004, but the problem is that the Liberals would need to rely on the support of either the Bloc Quebecois or the Conservatives to get legislation passed - something Martin had to deal with as well.

Of course, the problem with that analysis is that it leaves out the question of whether the Libs on their own would have any ability to gain the confidence of the House in the first place. After all, the Cons would formally stay in power following an election until they resigned or lost a confidence vote - and given the measures Stephen Harper has taken to stay in power in the past, would anybody be surprised if he either tries to proclaim that his party should remain in government (with Lib or Bloc support) for the sake of stability, or simply shuts down Ottawa as long as he can in hope of a do-over?

So no, a push to the top of the party standings wouldn't guarantee the Libs a place in government. But then, nor would the Cons be assured of staying in power in a distribution of 148 Con, 87 Lib, 50 Bloc and 23 NDP as Eric suggests:

The Conservatives win 76 seats in the West and North, 55 in Ontario, nine in Atlantic Canada, and eight in Quebec. It ensures that their minority government survives for a few more sessions, but probably tests the patience of the Conservative Party for their three-time minority leader.

Once again, this analysis avoids the question of whether the Cons would be able to secure enough support from another party to actually hold on for "a few more sessions". And as some of us have pointed out, Harper's "our majority or their majority" rhetoric may only be laying the groundwork for a coalition to replace his government to the extent democratic processes are allowed to run their course.

In fact, what Eric's analysis ultimately shows is that even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios based on current polling, no party figures to be in a position to govern without somebody else's support (except to the extent the Cons decide not to face the House). And that means that it's absolutely essential to take into account the possible permutations among the second, third, fourth and potentially fifth parties, rather than assuming that the party with the most seats will be able to form government.