Base → Parties → Legislative influence assessment

A method to assess the influence of political families

by Maurice Y. Michaud (he/him)

The PoliCan legislative influence evaluation grid is meant to measure a political family’s relative impact after each general election, and the average of each family’s scores determines if it has historically tended to be a gov­ern­ment or opposition party. “Relative” here means trying to neutralize the magnitude of a family’s wins and losses, and evaluating it based solely on its influence in the legislature.

But, as is often the case with averages, some scores, particularly in small jurisdictions, may initially seem counter­intuitive or nonsensical. For instance, how can the New Brunswick NDP be rated “Opposition 4” when there has never been five distinct parties sitting in that legislature at any time? That score should, however, simply be read as meaning that the NDP has not enjoyed much electoral success in New Brunswick.

On the other hand, in other jurisdictions, a family’s score could reflect how it tends to be almost perpetually the official opposition or, conversely, the “natural governing party.” For instance, consider the average influence score of the Liberal Party of Canada:

Indeed, that is how we have come to refer to it (lovingly or begrudgingly) as “Canada’s natural governing party.” However, if a jurisdiction has two families with a score in the “Opposition 1” range and none in the “Government” range, it could be concluded that there is a healthy alternance of power in that jurisdiction.
 

The grid, described and explained

The grid begins by giving a party a base score reflecting the position in which it found itself after a general election.

• 5.00: Formed government
• 4.00: Opposition 1 (or the official opposition)
• 3.00: Opposition 2
• 2.00: Opposition 3
• 1.00: Opposition 4
• 0.00: Shut out (did not win a single seat)
• n/a:  Opposition X (set aside: seats won by banners or independents)
• null:  Did not exist or did not contest the election

Then, as outlined in this table, bonus or deduction points are applied to that score (see detailed explanations below).

Formed government (Base: 5.00   Maximum: 5.75/6.00   Minimum: 4.65)

For forming government, a party receives one but only one of the following bonuses or deductions, which is applied to its base score.

The bonus points it could get are:

• +0.25: Formed a respectable majority government (under two-thirds of the seats in the legislature).
  Note: That majority must be of more than 2 seats, however (see below).
• +0.50: Formed a strong majority government (two-thirds or more but less than 85% of the seats in the legislature).
• +0.75: Formed an invisible majority government (85% or more of the seats in the legislature, but not all).
• +1.00: Won all the seats in the legislature.
  Note: This has happened only twice, so the default maximum number of points remains 5.75 even though this bonus results in an influence score of 6.00.

But the deduction could be severe enough to bring the party’s score very close to the official opposition’s.
Note: The fourth deduction takes precedence over the first three. But if it is not applicable but two of the remaining three deductions are applicable, the most severe takes precedence.

• −0.35: Obtaining the same number of seats as the official opposition suggests an unconvincing win.
  Note: For its part, the official opposition gets a bonus of +0.39 (see below).
  Example: In the 1998 Nova Scotia general election, the governing Liberals got 19 seats, as did the NDP. Therefore, the parties’ respective influence scores were 4.65 and 4.64, the slight edge for the Liberals serving to indicate that they formed government.
• −0.25: Forming a minority government or having a majority below +3 seats.
  Note: A bare majority of only one or two seats could easily become a minority following by-elections or floor crossings, thus why it is considered as volatile as a minority.
  Example: In 1988 in Manitoba, what was ostensibly a majority government (with a majority of +2) unexpectedly fell when some members of the governing party voted against the budget.
  Exception: Given the small size of the Yukon assembly (16 to 21 seats from 1978 to the 2020s), +2 seats rather than +3 is considered more than a bare majority. The exception applies as well for Prince Edward Island, whose assembly has ranged from having 27 to 32 seats. It could have applied for Nova Scotia between 1933 and 1949 when its assembly had only 30 seats, but the Liberals’ majorities were always decisive in those years. Same thing for Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 (25 seats).
• −0.15: Losing the popular vote.
  Examples: While far from being the only examples, in New Brunswick in 1970, the Progressive Conservatives obtained a majority of +3 with a vote share 0.22% lower than the Liberals’. Then, in 1974, the PCs won a majority of +4, but this time with a vote share 0.66% lower. By taking away 0.15 points from the PCs and giving them to the Liberals (as well as an extra −0.05 deduction from the PCs because their average votes per candidate [v/c] was lower than that the official opposition), the parties’ respective influence scores were 4.80 and 4.40 rather than 5.25 and 4.25, thereby better reflecting the rivals’ relative strength.
• −0.10: A minority government being propped up by the formal or informal support of an opposition party.
  Note: Although such support may make the government a de facto majority, this minuscule deduction takes into account that this majority was not entirely of the governing party’s doing. For its part, the party using its balance of power in this manner gets a bonus of +0.40 (see below).

Once the appropriate condition has been applied to the base score, the following minuscule deduction can also be applied:

• −0.05: The average votes per candidate (v/c) was lower than that the official opposition.
  Note: This deduction is omitted even if it is true if the condition “Obtaining the same number of seats as the official opposition” above was met, as its application would push the party outside the “Government” range.

Official opposition / Opposition 1 (Base: 4.00   Maximum: 4.64   Minimum: 3.65)

By virtue of being the “government in waiting” (even when it’s in fact very unlikely), a party forming the official opposition is evaluated more harshly than the lower opposition groups. But first, let’s recognize that the party formed the official opposition:

• +0.25 (firm): For coming second in the seat count.
  Note: Normally, a party coming second in the seat count is declared the official opposition, so 0.25 points are automatically added to its base score, also signalling that it is a recognized party.
• −0.25 (firm) + 0.25 = 0.00: For declining or being denied official opposition.
  Note: In some rare cases, a party coming second in the seat count declined forming the official opposition, as was the case for the federal Progressives in 1921, or was denied that privilege. In such cases, 0.25 points are first deducted from the base score, bringing it to 3.75, but then 0.25 points are added to that new base score to acknowledge that the party is recognized, leaving its base score at 4.00 (as if it had received neither bonus nor deduction points for coming second).

It could also get one of the three following bonuses:

• +0.39: Obtaining the same number of seats as the government suggests relative strength.
  Note: This bonus is −0.01 than might have been expected to prevent the party from reaching the “Government” range.
  Example: Despite overwhelmingly winning the popular vote in 2021 (39.3% to 32.4%), the Yukon Party won the same number of seats as the Liberals, but the Liberals, being the incumbent government, had first dibs at forming government. They formed that government by obtaining a confidence-and-supply agreement with the NDP, so the final influence scores were 4.85 for the Liberals, 4.64 for the Yukon Party, and 3.64 for the NDP (rather than 4.75, 4.25 and 3.25).
• +0.15: Winning the popular vote.
  Example: In New Brunswick in 1952, the Progressive Conservatives won 20 more seats than the Liberals and held a majority of +10, yet their vote share was 0.30% lower than the Liberals’. So, by giving the Liberals an extra 0.15 points and taking away that same number from the PCs’ base score instead of giving them 0.50 bonus points for forming a strong majority, the gap between the two was reduced from 1.25 to 0.45 (PC: 5.50 → 4.85; Lib: 4.25 → 4.40), thereby indicating that this election was much closer than what the final seat counts suggested.
• +0.05: Having a higher average votes per candidate (v/c) than the government.
  If neither of the above two conditions is met, then there might be one small bonus to serve as a consolation, as the government would have been deducted that same amount if this statement is true.

A party arriving second in the seat count is exposed to the harshest penalty, which could wipe out all its bonuses.

• −0.60: The average votes per candidate (v/c) was lower than that of an opposition party recognized in the assembly.
  Example: The Québec Liberal Party emerged from the 2022 general election as the official opposition. However, in terms of the popular vote, it finished fourth, behind the CAQ, QS and the PQ. This deduction tempered the automatic bonus the Liberals received by virtue of having formed the official opposition, giving them am influence score of 3.65 instead of 4.25. For its part, QS, which ought to have been the official opposition if based on the popular vote, received 0.10 bonus points for having a higher v/c than the Liberals, giving it an influence score of 3.35, thus leaving a gap of only 0.30 between the two parties instead of 1.00.
  Note: Reduced to only −0.35 if tied for Opposition 1 but is not the official opposition.

But a party arriving second could instead be imposed a much smaller deduction.

• −0.10: The average votes per candidate (v/c) was lower than that of an equal or lower opposition party.
  Note: This deduction is similar to the one imposed on Oppositions 2, 3 and 4, the difference for them being that all participating parties (including those that were shut out) are taken into account, while only parties with members sitting in the assembly are considered for Opposition 1.
   

Opposition 2 (Base: 3.00   Maximum: 3.64   Minimum: 2.65)
Opposition 3 (Base: 2.00   Maximum: 2.64   Minimum: 1.65)
Opposition 4 (Base: 1.00   Maximum: 1.64   Minimum: 0.65)

A party in one of these positions starts off by getting either a bonus or a deduction.

• +0.25: Being a recognized party in the legislature.
• −0.25: Not being a recognized party in the legislature.

Being the second, third, or even fourth opposition renders a party relatively powerless unless a fluke in the numbers gives it a boost, either in fact or morally, as it can receive the highest of the following bonuses:

• +0.10: Higher average votes per candidate (v/c) than that of an equal or higher opposition party, but no balance of power.
• +0.20: Holding the balance of power BUT NOT lending it to the governing party.
  Example: The federal Liberal Party is the nemesis of the BQ. While it was always unlikely that the BQ would choose to lend its balance of power to the Liberals following the 2019, 2021 and 2025 elections, it still received bonus points for holding that potential. A party is always granted this bonus over the previous one (if it could be applied), even if that balance of power was only theoretical and that party was unlikely to lend it to the governing party.
• +0.40: Holding the balance of power AND lending it to the governing party.
  Note: Reduced to +0.39 if also a recognized party, to avoid having two different levels of opposition with the same score.
  Examples: As it did in the 29th Parliament formed in 1972, the NDP agreed to enter in a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberals in the 44th Parliament formed in 2021, thereby earning it this big bonus. But both times, the NDP took a huge hit in its seat count in the following general election, even losing official party status in 2025, which it had managed to keep after the 1974 election.

However, whether it is recognized or not, such a party can be hit by this tiny deduction:

• −0.10: Lower average votes per candidate (v/c) than that of an equal or lower opposition party or a party that was shut out.
  Note: This deduction is the mirror image of the first of the three possible bonuses above.

Being shut out (Base: 0.00   Maximum: 0.64   Minimum: 0.00)

A party can be shut out while it is ascending or descending, but also sometimes just as a fluke.
Examples of flukes: The Progressive Conservative in Nova Scotia in 1945 or the incumbent New Brunswick PCs in 1987.

However, this grid attempts to give shut-out parties some credit if they at least attained a certain level in the popular vote:

< 2.5%	≥ 2.5% & < 5.0%	≥ 5.0% & < 7.5%	≥ 7.5% & < 10.0%	≥ 10.0% & < 12.5%	≥ 12.5% & < 15.0%	≥ 15.0%
+0.00	+0.10	+0.20	+0.30	+0.40	+0.50	+0.60
Higher v/c than an Oppo. or another shut out
+0.05						+0.04

Opposition X (Base: n/a   Maximum: n/a   Minimum: n/a)

Serves only to count the number of seats held by banners or independents.
 

Absent (Base: null   Maximum: null   Minimum: null)

A party’s number of presences in general elections is the denominator for calculating its average score. That way, that party is not penalized for not yet or no longer existing, or for choosing not to contest certain general elections. In some cases, some parties are explicitly excluded from a given year’s assessement, for by then, their presence had become irrelevant.
Example: The Social Credit Party in Alberta after 1982.
 

An application of the legislative influence grid

As an example, here is the completed grid evaluating the 44th federal parliament formed in 2021.