Take surveys to earn money?! Is this legit?


Please ignore all previous posts on this blog. It is now a place where I review side hustles and money-making schemes. Let’s do this.


I have a decent adult job with decent adult pay. But you know what else I have? A university degree. And a house. And a credit card. University put me into a hole of debt from whence I may never emerge – six years later I still feel like I’m drowning in it, and I only got one degree. I know some people with two or three. Yikes. The only reason I could put a down payment on a townhouse is because my job matches my RRSP contributions, and I was able to use that saved money as my downpayment using the First Time Homebuyer’s Plan. Which means I am now also in debt to my own RRSPs. Being a millennial is pretty cool.

It’s hard to make ends meet every month, and I inevitably end up in overdraft on my bank account (yet another expense, as it charges me $5/day for being poor).


When things started to feel desperate and the existential pain of financial entropy had gotten to be too much, I did what any member of my generation would do, and asked Google how to make quick and easy money from home. This tactic, in case you haven’t tried it, get’s you bombarded with claims that you can “earn up to $5 for every survey you complete!” Sounds too good to be legit, but I’m already a mess of a human so I’ve got nothing to lose from trying it out, right?


That depends on what you mean by “legit”. It’s not generally an outright scam. No one is going to steal your money or your identity. But you also aren’t going to be earning $5 per survey. Ever.

It also depends on what sites you use. Many sites require you to pay to sign up, and I avoided those like the plague, so I can’t speak to their legitness.


Seriously, I’m here to make money, not pay money.

I did, however, try a bunch of the free to sign up survey sites. They generally pay you in points or in outright money, but only allow you to cash out once you hit a certain threshold. How you cash out varies widely, and while some allow you to get paid via PayPal, many of them only cash out in various gift cards, which is only useful if you shop often at the places they offer cards for.

Universally, each survey rarely pays more than a couple of cents. In addition, there is always a pre-survey where they collect demographic information about you to determine if you match their target audience. If not, then you just wasted a bunch of your time on the pre-survey only to get kicked out with little or no payment.

In about a year of doing surveys for multiple sites on an almost daily basis, I cashed out a grand total of $175.

I no longer do surveys as a side hustle, because the amount of time you have to dedicate is not at all worth the payout. It’s also, and I cannot stress this enough, one of the most soul-sucking things I’ve ever done for money. I have yet to find something as awful as hotel housekeeping, but paid surveys gets pretty close. I got to a point where I would open a new survey and just sit there staring at it, feeling sad, before closing it without even starting.


Of the sites I tried, most were relatively legit, while others were a bit more… scammy. It’s complicated. Let me just go through a list of the ones I’ve tried, and give you my experience of each one.

  • Toluna – this is one of the most legit ones I tried. It was responsible for 60 of the dollars I earned on survey sites. It’s really good at pre-matching you to surveys you qualify for, so you rarely get disqualified. You collect points for surveys, the amount varies by each survey, and when you reach a certain number of points you can cash out via PayPal. When I used this site a year or two ago, the payout threshold was about $20. It’s a difficult threshold to meet, but not impossible.
  • Daily Rewards – this one is pretty legit, and has offers besides surveys that can earn you money. However, it’s also one of the most annoying. I earned about $60 here as well, but the vast majority of that was earned in the first week or two when a bunch of random offers are available for which the payout is relatively high. Once you’ve exhausted those offers, there are no more coming, and you have to get disqualified by pre-survey after pre-survey, until you finally find one you actually qualify for that earns you about 5 cents. It’s pretty gruelling. The payout threshold is $30, and you get your money via PayPal. That first $30 is relatively doable, but after that, it’s a real slog.
  • Global Test Market – I made about $30 from this one. The payout threshold is relatively low, which makes payouts feel much more achievable. However, I think the fact that I made half here of what I made at the other two speaks volumes. It’s hard to build up enough points to get to a payout.
  • i-Say – This one is probably the most fun of them all. Even when you don’t qualify for a survey they’ve offered, you get to play a guessing game in exchange for entries into a draw. I never won the draw, and who knows if anyone ever does, but it was still entertaining nonetheless. In total, I made $15 from this one. You can get a PayPal transfer at $15, but there are rarely surveys you qualify for and the site is glitchy as all getout, so even when surveys are offered they have a tendency to crash or kick you out.
  • Web Perspectives – I only got $10 from this one, in Amazon gift cards. There were rarely any surveys on offer, and building up points was difficult.
  • Opinion Outpost and Maru – I didn’t get payouts from either of these, ever. They almost never had surveys available, and their payout thresholds were so freaking high it was impossible to reach in a reasonable amount of time. These are ones I would deem to be more on the scammy end of things, and I recommend avoiding them entirely.
  • VIP Voice and InCanada – both of these have you use points to bid on prizes. Once again, very scammy. Stay away.


Please subscribe if you found this useful and want to hear about other side hustles I’ve tried.

Do you ever spin/turn in your dreams? – Weird Dream Journal

Weird Dream Journal

January 5, 2018 – Dream 1

I was dreaming about playing Minecraft at a party, and was building this crazy amazing city made up of complex boardwalks and overpasses on an ocean, and with access to underground towers and castles.

There was an element of reality to the game though, as I could actually physically go through doors to access and play different accounts and game levels. Like a super realistic VR Minecraft.

I was showing friends at the party what I was working on, and was also looking at some of their stuff, and it was an all-around chill and fun time. But after a while I started walking or spinning in circles, and was having a hard time doing anything. No one was too concerned, we were all just like “huh that’s kind of annoying.”

The party I was playing at was a going away party for two of my friends. They were both independently going to work under the table on different transport boats, and for some reason doing so involved jumping into the water and then being “saved” by the people on the boat as the boat was leaving. I guess the idea was that they could “save” a person stranded on the ocean, and then that person could “volunteer” to help work on the boat until it got to its destination. This somehow allowed them to avoid minimum wage and tax laws.

Anyways, shortly after they left, the spinning ramped up, and the harder I tried to remain stationary, the faster and more violently I would spin. I would even try to position myself in corners or against walls so I could brace myself against something, but eventually I would fly free of the obstacle and go on spinning. Looking up or down made me go even faster. At one point I flew through one of the transport doors we were using for gaming, and ended up in someone’s house, floating up by the ceiling and just spinning super fast. A little kid who lived there asked wtf I was doing, and by that time I had just sort of given in to the spinning, closed my eyes, and given up trying to stop, and just said “I dunno, it’s just sort of happening and there’s nothing I can do about it.”

I eventually woke up confused, hot, and soaked in sweat. This isn’t the first time I’ve had dreams, or even waking thoughts, where myself or some image/character, was walking or spinning in circles (almost always counter-clockwise, in case you were wondering) with no way to stop or even slow them, so I tiredly tried looking it up. However, Google just sent me back results about how to stop/avoid paranoid thoughts, which was pretty unnerving in my tired and confused state, so I decided it was time to go back to sleep.

Carbon Tax Rant

Commentary, Politics, Rants, Society

My Facebook feed strikes again

I’m actually sharing this post not because I agree but because it’s kind of a terrible idea, and I’d like to explain why I think so.
It misrepresents what the carbon tax is.
The carbon tax isn’t revenue in the same way that something like income tax is. The money collected from the carbon tax MUST go towards paying for initiatives to combat climate change and reduce Alberta’s dependence on oil and gas. This money doesn’t go into their larger government pool to spend on whatever government things they want.
Maybe you think the NDP should be funding energy innovation from their regular revenue, or maybe you think they shouldn’t be funding such innovation at all. I think that since continued government funding on innovation in oil and gas is what allowed this crazy profitable industry to get started in AB in the first place, maybe it’s that industry’s turn to fund the next innovation.
I think we should keep the tax. It’s only fair that industries that have profited so immensely for so long while contributing to climate change also now contribute to repairing the damage and building a more sustainable future. To be fair to these industries, it seems like a good number of oil and gas companies are willing to step up to the plate in this regard. It’s just Conservative politicians and media who are having a hard time with it, and spreading shit like this around so that you’ll vote for them instead of the NDP in the next election.
It misrepresents what federal equalization payments are.
Transfer payments don’t work like this, and people need to stop sharing stuff that propagates this misconception. It’s dishonest at best. This makes it sound like the Government of Canada takes money from the Government of Alberta and gives it to the Government of Quebec. What actually happens is this: the Government of Canada collects income and business taxes from ALL Canadians, and some of those taxes get distributed to poorer provinces so that they can maintain a minimum standard of public services.
Stopping transfer payments doesn’t give more money to the government of Alberta, it just leaves the Federal government with more money, and all the provinces with less. Maaaaybe if the Feds also lowered income and business taxes at the same time (good luck with that), it would result in some individual Albertans having a tiny bit more money in their pockets at the end of the year, but the people who would benefit the most from such a move are the people who need it the least (i.e. super wealthy people who pay higher percentages and larger sums of tax). So you would be giving money back to mostly wealthy people across the country and taking services away from mostly poor and middle income people in have-not provinces. And the government of Alberta would still have to find the money to support their economic and climate goals from somewhere, so in this plan nobody’s goals get accomplished and almost everyone is worse off. Well done. *slow clap*
I disagree with stopping transfer payments because I have this crazy notion that as long as we’re united as a country, we should continue to have a minimum standard of healthcare, education, and social security across ALL provinces, not just the ones with lots of oil.
Also, can we just stop shitting on Quebec all the time? It’s not a good look, Alberta. 1. They’re not the only ones who accept equalization payments. 2. Asking for some of the tax revenue to offset the risk of having a pipeline run through your province is not unreasonable and doesn’t make them the bad guy here.
They’re raising a straw man to distract you, which helps no one.
To all my conservative-voting friends and family – they’re just building up a straw man for you to take down. Most of the stuff they say to demonize the NDP is distorted, exaggerated, or outright false. The NDP surely aren’t perfect, but they’re no worse than the PCs were, and some of their initiatives stand a really good chance of actually working and making life better for Albertans. They’re willing to take risks and try new things in a way the PCs haven’t been for a long time, and that’s very much what we need right now. Give them a chance.
While some individual PC and Wildrose politicians are good representatives who are on your side, each of those parties as a whole is most definitely not. They don’t care about whether or not you have a job in the industry, they only care about winning the government and propping up their corporate friends. Don’t buy into it and share their bullshit oil vs. NDP propaganda. Do your research, understand the issues, and demand that they do better by you as voters. Challenge them to stop the fear and hate mongering and instead build a conservative party that is actually conservative and actually cares about your bottom line. Engage in meaningful debate, consultation, and advocacy with the current NDP government to have your voice heard. Ignore the strawnotley.

Delusions of Christmas Wars

Commentary, Random, Society

The WAR ON CHRISTMAS has begun again. And frankly, I’m tired of it. The only time I’ve ever heard of anyone “attacking” Christmas is when right-wing pundits and social media shares wax paranoid about the possibility of some horrific Orwellian dystopian future in which everyone is banned from mentioning or even thinking about Christmas.

Public Service Announcement: the use of the word “holiday” instead of “Christmas” is not an attack on Christmas, or your right to celebrate it openly. I’m going to explore this from the angle of this Facebook post a friend shared:

What happens if the palm tree is covered in twinkling lights and ornaments?

What happens if the palm tree is covered in twinkling lights and ornaments? What about if I’m on holidays somewhere that has pine trees? Isn’t a palm tree actually more Christian than a decorated pine tree? I’m more confused now than when I started…

Decorated trees are actually quite secular. They originate in pagan mythologies, have nothing to do with Christ or Christianity (pretty sure they never mentioned decorating a tree in the New Testament), are enjoyed by people of many faiths, and therefor technically aren’t really “Christmas” trees. We just often call them Christmas trees because we do the tree thing at the same time as the Christmas thing. But many other faiths do the tree thing in conjunction with their mid-winter holidays as well. Most faiths have some kind of holiday around this time, because you’re celebrating being “half-way out of the dark”, as they so rightly said on Doctor Who. And who doesn’t love bringing a bit more light and beauty into their lives during a time of year when the outside world is dark and barren? I’ve known people of all sorts of backgrounds, from Jewish to Hindu to Atheist, from naturally born citizen to immigrant, who put up trees at this time of year. It’s a way of feeling connected to the broader community you live in despite other differences, which is a wonderful thing.

If you’re a Christian celebrating a Christian-y Christmas that also includes a tree, calling it a Christmas tree for convenience makes a lot of sense, even if it is a secular tradition. You put up a tree when you celebrate Christmas. It’s a Christmas tree. Fair enough. But if you’re non-Christian and doing the tree thing (which is totally allowed because decorated trees are not a Christian tradition) then having another name for it can be useful. If you don’t feel connected to the idea of Christ or Christianity, but you DO feel connected to the tradition of decorating a tree and celebrating with your loved ones, being forced to invoke the idea of Christ in this non-Christian tradition can feel a bit… off.

Part of it is that it’s annoying to be told you’re celebrating a holiday you’re not actually celebrating. People are like “THIS IS A CHRISTMAS TREE!” and you’re like “but… it’s not? There’s nothing Christian about this tree or about my own traditions at this time of year. I don’t have Jesus or angels or anything on it, I don’t go to Church, I don’t spend any time at all thinking about the life, times, and death of Jesus. Why does MY tree have to be a Christmas tree just because YOU are celebrating Christmas right now?”

Another part is that I feel like it’s really disrespectful of me to be invoking the idea of Christ when I don’t actually believe in it*. The idea of Christ is of monumental importance to many people, and when I throw it around willy-nilly in spite of having no personal connection to it, what does that communicate to people who take the idea of Christ really seriously? Who have a major emotional, social, and spiritual connection to the idea?

Luckily, language is flexible and context is important. Unless you’re in some kind of scientific field conducting experiments, things don’t have single, set, precise names assigned to them. You can call yours a Christmas tree and others can call theirs a holiday tree without all communication breaking down and society falling to pieces. And it makes a lot of sense for secular people and groups, such as atheists, governments, corporations, whatever, to use more general and all-encompassing terms. It’s not actually offensive to say “holiday” instead of “Christmas”. The world doesn’t revolve around you, and just because you’re celebrating Christmas doesn’t mean everyone else has to as well.

*Having said all this, I still often refer to them as Christmas trees out of habit – it’s how I was raised. It makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but we’re all imperfect works in progress and I’m trying really hard to improve myself in this area.These things take time and practice, you know.

Gender Parity in the Cabinet

Commentary, Politics, Rants

Stephen Harper had an extremely unstable cabinet, shuffling ministers around regularly and often making appointments that were questionable at best. Remember the environment minister who was a climate change denier in his spare time?

This isn’t unique to Mr. Harper. Patronage has been the method by which most of the top positions have been chosen in Canadian politics for most of our history. For some people, this has been a consistent concern, particularly when Prime Ministers make terrible choices like the example I gave above. But the vast majority of Canadians don’t really care. I’ve often seen them claim with an indifferent shrug of their shoulders that those ministers must have been chosen for a reason. There’s a general feeling of trust that a mostly male, arbitrarily appointed Federal Cabinet is probably somehow qualified to do the job. When they prove themselves to be unqualified by doing a bad job, they’re judged individually on the merit of their work, not collectively on the reasons they got the position the first place, and the country gets on with its day.

Introduce gender parity as Justin Trudeau just did, and suddenly people come out of the woodwork and decide they give a MASSIVE shit about merit-based minister selection.

Prime Ministers overlook qualified female candidates in favour of their friends all the time and few even notice, but introduce even the slightest chance that an even slightly better male candidate may have been overlooked in order to make the cabinet look more like the actual Canadian population, and suddenly it’s a problem. No one even stops to consider that maybe we have gender parity not because Trudeau is throwing out qualified male candidates, but because he’s actually bothering to consider female candidates in the first place, something that previous PMs rarely seemed to do.

Few people have bothered looking at how qualified the new ministers are: they see a news headline about gender parity and jump to the conclusion that most of them must be unqualified because they must have been chosen on the basis of their genitals alone. It’s assumed that men got their position because they’re qualified, and that women or minorities got it to fill a quota. The widespread assumption that men are automatically more qualified results in more qualified women being turned down in favour of less qualified men all the time. It’s a problem that Justin Trudeau set out to overcome, and he seems to have succeeded.

Everyone is suddenly clamouring for merit-based appointment over representativeness-based appointment, but hiring is more than a simple, objective checklist that can be equally applied to anyone and everyone to come to a 100% guaranteed best conclusion. I’ve done this kind of appointment work before, where you’re given way too many qualified candidates for a limited number of positions, and have to find a way to organize them into those positions. In these processes, things like representativeness and interpersonal ability/circumstances become really important. You’re putting together a team that has to work cooperatively to effectively represent and serve a diverse social landscape.

When you go into this kind of process, you create an image in your mind of how you want the group to look as a whole once it’s formed, and then balance that against how you want each individual position to look. Sometimes you get lucky with the perfect group and the perfect candidate for each position, sometimes you have to make small sacrifices to one in order to improve the other, and that’s okay. Attempting to apply complete objectivity to people’s so-called “merits” to pick the exactly most “qualified” person for each position would overlook an important fact of humanity: humans are not work experience robots, and you can’t slot them into positions in the same way you would choose which smart phone to buy or which accounting software to install for your business. They’re complicated, and their ideas, work ethic, interpersonability, and yes, even their representativeness, all matter. Those things are all part of their “merits”. If you’re looking at specific work experiences alone, you run the risk of creating a dysfunctional and incapable team.

People complain about representativeness being chosen over qualifications, but when it comes to a representative body like a federal cabinet, representativeness is a qualification. This should go without saying, but a cabinet that’s more representative of the population will do a better job of representing the population. Ministers do more than just lead their individual ministry, they also do a lot of team work to create policy, and an unrepresentative cabinet cannot hope to make representative policy.

It’s also worth mentioning that in a government where policy is determined by a team and ministers have access to massive support and staff structures, underqualification does not have to be the end of the world. Most of Harper’s cabinet ministers were woefully unqualified for their specific positions, but Canada kept chugging along.

Look, I’m no fan of Trudeau. I have many misgivings about him and the Liberal party, and I don’t trust them any more than all of you nay-sayers. However, forced gender parity in the cabinet is not the massive problem all these people seem to think it is. If anything, it’s a step up from the “appoint your old, white friends and a token minority or two” system used by previous PMs, because at least this one is relatively representative of the population. So stop your complaining. If you’re bothered about a specific minister’s lack of specific experiences, then be critical in that way, but don’t jump to the conclusion that the ministers must be unqualified just because Trudeau had the audacity to actually seriously consider some female candidates for once. Try to treat our gender-equal cabinet the same way you treated the mostly-male one: judge them individually on their level of experience and the quality of their work, rather than assuming they just got the job because they happen to have a certain set of genitalia. If you were fine with previous ministers getting their position because they were white men who were chummy with the PM (and all evidence suggests that this could be the only reason many of them got it) then you have no right to complain about the possibility that this time around, maybe some were more strongly considered for a ministry because they were women.

Title Twists Story To Uphold Patriarchy, and It Makes No Sense


Today I am addressing an article titled: Woman Thanks Man For Slut Shaming Her And It Makes Total Sense.

First of all, the woman was not thanking the man for slut-shaming her. He noticed other men in the area behaving in a predatory way, noticed she was completely unaware, and chose to go out of his way to warn her about the potential danger she was in. Good move, bro. You a good guy. That’s what he was being thanked for. The other thing he did, however, was blame their behavior on her yoga pants.

She chose to ignore the slut-shaming aspect, thank him for the warning, and leave the area – a perfectly reasonable and sensible reaction by all accounts. What is not reasonable or sensible is the way this article tells the story. The man did two distinct deeds that day, one of them good and one of them sexist. The article twists the narrative to make it look like the two deeds were one and the same, encouraging readers to think that it’s sometimes a good thing to be sexist. It’s not.

This is why we need to strive for more nuance in journalism. You can be a good person (as this guy probably is) and still be sexist. The two are not mutually exclusive, and we need to stop treating them like they are if we ever want to deal with systemic sexism.

The world isn’t split into good people and death eaters.

Of course, you won’t get nuance from Chicks on the Right because they don’t want to be part of the solution to systemic sexism. They want to deny it’s existence altogether, presumably because the people who run this publication directly benefit from sexism and would lose support and power if sexism were successfully dismantled. This article wasn’t singing praises to the man’s good deed, it was using the story to push a narrative that reinforces one of the most damaging aspects of patriarchy. Here’s what the article was really communicating:

Don’t be in public spaces. They don’t belong to you. If you have to be in a public space, make yourself as invisible as possible, or else. You know what? Maybe just stop existing. That’s probably the most sensible way to deal with this problem. And if something does happen to you, it’s definitely all your fault.

What’s so damaging about this is how pervasive it is – it seeps into every single aspect of every single woman’s life, and no woman is free, equal, or even safe while it continues to dominate discourses about public safety and personal responsibility. I really hate having to be paranoid and afraid all the time, just because I was born with female anatomy. Why do I have to look out for my own behavior and for every man on the street? Why can’t men take some responsibility for themselves? Why is it always, always, my job? There’s a certain irony in claiming that you can’t change others’ behavior, only your own, in relation to a story that aims to reinforce the idea that women are responsible for the way men behave.

The guy deserved thanks for looking out for her safety (if someone warned me about predatory behavior I hadn’t noticed, I’d be thankful), and I can understand just thanking him and continuing with your day without addressing the sexism (it doesn’t seem like a worthy hill to die on, and he was trying to help). However, there’s no need to assume that she was at fault for being unsafe and it’s a bit saddening that she’s internalized that narrative and the guilt that comes with it.

Criminals cause crimes, not victims. Her clothing had nothing to do with their pervy behavior. I’ve been sexually harassed and catcalled in all manner of attire, from tight dresses, to t-shirt and jeans, to full winter gear in all its bulky and form-hiding glory, to fucking pyjamas.

I’ve been catcalled while dressed like this. Really. For real.

If men such as the pervs in this story think there’s a vagina hiding under the clothes, they will harass or catcall. It was nothing to do with her yoga pants. She would have received the same attention if she had been wearing sweat pants and a hoodie. By suggesting her yoga pants were the reason for the men’s behavior, this article perpetrates dangerous misinformation about what sexual violence is, and why it happens. It’s got nothing to do with sexual desire, and everything to do with power and control. Her yoga pants were not the problem.

I understand that this is the world we live in, but I refuse to accept it. Because if we accept it and bow to it, then it’s never going to change. We CAN change others’ behavior, by making it known that their bad behavior is unacceptable and expecting better of them. Jumping down that guy’s throat would not have made things better, and I won’t criticize how she reacted. I probably would have done the same. However, writing off the pervy behavior as logical and expected, and internalizing guilt about being dressed the wrong way (or, you know, existing), is actively reinforcing an unacceptable status quo. We are capable of greater things, and I’d personally like to be part of the movement to achieve them.

How to vote strategically (actually)

Elections, Politics

Strategic voting refers to voting for the candidate most likely to beat the one you don’t like in order to make your vote count for more. There are all sorts of websites set up to try to make this kind of voting as easy as possible for you. However, a really good voting strategy involves a little more complexity than just choosing the most popular lesser evil.

The first thing you want to do is figure out the popularity of each candidate in your riding. Even though your vote no longer contributes to parties’ election funding, showing your support to the party you like by giving them your vote can still help increase their legitimacy, and that’s worth quite a lot – your vote always counts, even if your candidate won’t win because of it. The more of the popular vote they manage to secure, the more seriously other parties have to take them – this is particularly important for historically smaller parties like the Green Party, which frequently gets left out of debates and interviews. If you know that the candidate you dislike is unlikely to win anyway, then go ahead and vote for the party or candidate you like the best! Sometimes “strategic voting” isn’t necessary.


If you find that strategic voting may be necessary in your riding, then you can consider voting for the most popular lesser evil, but donating to or buying a membership for the party or candidate you actually like. More registered members means more legitimacy, and more campaign money means better advertising and lobbying efforts so that their policy ideas can reach more minds and have more influence over the more popular parties’ actions.


You can also write to the candidates and their party leaders, and pressure them to consider the platform points you support from the party you wish you could vote for. Even if a candidate is not going to win, their ideas, if popular enough, can still influence the behavior of other candidates and their parties, during the election and after. This kind of citizen lobbying can do a lot more than you realize, especially if a lot of people engage in it! It’s also free – all you need is an e-mail address.


Candidate Popularity


There are a few ways to figure out candidate popularity, and I recommend using them all for the most accurate results.


1. Look at polls – multiple ones, since a single poll is rarely accurate on its own.


2. Take a walk around your riding and see which way it’s leaning based on lawn signs. Anyone with non-PC signs, or signs supporting CBC, public libraries, or other publicly funded operations, probably won’t vote PC (for example). If there is almost no signage supporting the party you dislike (or its policies), then they’re highly unlikely to win that riding and you can feel pretty safe voting for whoever you want.


3. Consider your riding’s demographics. Is it mostly old white people? Mostly students? Young families? Immigrants? Old and/or well-off white people and fundamentalist Christian families tend to vote for the most “conservative” candidate available (sorry for overgeneralizing, old white people and Christians). My riding growing up was mostly young families and students, and that riding has been pretty strongly held by the NDP for a pretty long time. My current riding is mostly professionals, immigrant families, and low income/single parent families, so it’s unsurprising that the Liberal party has held it for some time, and since the Liberals have been slowly falling out of favour with their historic voting base at other electoral levels, I wasn’t much surprised when they were ousted and replaced by a NDP candidate in the recent Provincial election. Demographics can tell you a lot about how your riding will vote.
*Remember that new seats have been added and federal riding boundaries have changed this year, which could change your riding’s historic demographics, and therefore it’s historic voting habits.


4. Check out the parties or platforms of other successful politicians in your riding. In Edmonton, we had provincial and municipal elections fairly recently, so their results can serve as a good test for how your riding votes – who is your MP, City Councillor, and School Board Trustee? The kinds of platforms they ran on will tell you how your riding likes to vote. Sometimes you can even see how many votes each candidate received, so you can tell how close (or not) their particular race was, although the 2015 Electoral report for the Provincial election hasn’t been released yet so you’ll just have to settle for knowing who the winner was.