In the United States, the discussions about sex-ed tend to fall into two categories: should it be taught in the classroom, and should it concentrate exclusively on abstinence. The first notion is not particularly popular, as only nine per cent of respondents are willing to do away with sex-ed in American schools. The second one has been controversial, as federal funding has been provided to programs that “prevent teenage pregnancy.” And abstinence, as its staunchest defenders like to quote, has a 100 per cent rate of success in achieving that goal.

Out of the three countries surveyed, the U.S. has the highest incidence of teenage births. Still, while about nine-in-ten respondents believe that there is a place for discussions about abstinence in a sex-ed course, topics such as pregnancy and birth control should also be part of the curriculum. The one striking finding is the fact that Americans are more likely to have found conversations with family members useful when they were teenagers and wanted to learn more about sex (57%, compared to 49% for Canadians and 35% for Britons).

The British sample provided several surprises. First of all, they are definitely disappointed with the sex-ed courses they received when they were younger. Only 43 per cent of Britons say they found their classes useful—way below the Canadian and American averages. Faced with the ostensibly appalling sex-ed courses, Britons looked elsewhere, but the family was not a particularly positive option.

Britain was the only country where the practicality of the media to learn about sex was on par with conversations with friends. Over many decades, the Brits have provided the world with sex symbols, ranging from Lady Godiva to James Bond. Respondents acknowledge that they were more likely to find good information about sex from television, books, movies and magazines than at school or with family.

Canada definitely emerges as the most open country when discussing sex. For Canadians, virtually no topic is off limits: homosexuality, bullying and abortion should all be part of the curriculum for more than four-in-five respondents. Two thirds are also willing to converse about pleasure—a decidedly higher proportion than the American counterparts.

Another difference for Canadians is their insistence in starting sex-ed at a younger age, with 57 per cent of respondents saying these courses should begin at age 11 or younger—compared to a low of 40 per cent of Americans. Canadians also show particular breadth, with the highest proportion of respondents who believe venereal diseases and sexual pleasure should both be discussed in the classroom.

The three countries have two interesting traits in common: most respondents believe parents or guardians should be primarily responsible for teaching sex education to children and teens. Still, a majority of Americans who look back at their teenage years acknowledge that they found their own conversations with family useful—compared to half of Canadians and just over a third of Britons. Conversations with friends are, by far, the most trusted source in the three countries, regardless of age, gender and political allegiance. We definitely hope that parents take the lead in talking about sex, but in reality, we remember that we had a chance to be more open, inquisitive and ultimately, knowledgeable, thanks to our friends.

For the past three years it has become clear that Americans have become increasingly irritated. Only two-in-five approve of their president, just 13 per cent are satisfied with their federal lawmakers, four-in-five agree with the notion of bankers being “fat cats”, and a mere 12 per cent rate the national economy as good. Faced with such bleak reviews for the government and the economic system, it is important to ask which one of these sources of despair will be a bigger motivator in the 2012 election.

A survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion last month sought to review the effect of the Occupy Wall Street movement on the country’s political scene. It was not meant to be an opportunity to express sympathy for the group and its ideas. Instead, the poll listed the root causes of discomfort of the two social movements that have spawned in the U.S. over the past two years—the Tea Party and Occupy—and asked Americans which of the two situations made them angrier.

The proportion of Americans who are angrier about the amount of money that the government spends, and how high taxes, the national debt and the federal budget deficit currently are—the Tea Party’s position—reached 51 per cent in the survey, with support coming from 79 per cent of Republicans, 49 per cent of Independents and 34 per cent of Democrats.

Conversely, 40 per cent of Americans—an 11-point gap at the national level—are angrier about social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of commercial interests and lobbyists on the U.S. government, the main grievances of the Occupy movement. Support for this notion comes from 58 per cent of Democrats, but drops to 40 per cent among Independents and 19 per cent among Republicans. When paired against each other, the Tea Party movement is decidedly more popular and encompassing than the Occupy movement.

The main hindrances for the Occupy crowd are a lack of coherence and the absence of a true political strategy. The Tea Party went from fringe to mainstream because it succeeded in looking at candidates who were willing to abide by their values. More importantly, it did not frown upon the notion that these politicians would be Republicans. Some of them—like Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio—are already in Washington. Meanwhile, Occupy has shunned all labels, appearing decidedly unbiased when it comes to politicians: everyone is at fault, and voting will not solve anything.

Still, assuming that the Occupy movement is still relevant when the 2012 presidential election takes place, it is imperative to figure out where these voters would go. Maybe they will ask people to abstain, recycle their ballots, or support a third party candidate. All of these actions would only serve to enable a victory for the Republican Party. Maybe they will endorse Barack Obama, although the protests have become a great reminder of the fact that hope and change were not delivered swiftly in the incumbent’s first term.

Some people have gone as far as to compare Occupy with the American Civil Rights movement. Even the relatives of Dr. Martin Luther King are pointing out the differences. In the 1960s, well organized groups with discernible leaders participated in a series of civil and non-violent protests for a cause that was clear: ending the second class citizenship of a large proportion of the American population. The group indeed succeeded in taking over segregated public spaces, such as lunch rooms or transit vehicles. However, its organizers knew that their goal to remove existing barriers required achievements in two areas: judicial challenges and legislative action.

It took more than a decade to achieve tangible successes, from the landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision in 1954, to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. So far, the Occupy movement has not challenged the status quo through judicial and legislative means. Without a strategy that addresses these issues, Occupy will ultimately be remembered as a fleeting nuisance, and not as a movement that effectively plays a role in enacting political change.

From the start, the new technology had its critics, who focused on issues such as Internet access, random selection and the uncanny assumption that we were merely replicating the thousands of “quickie polls” where any person can participate as many times as he or she pleases. Our approach was simple: ensure that the make-up of a constituency is carefully represented within the sample, and issue invitations for particular surveys to a randomly selected portion of the online panel.

Our record has proven that online panels—when combined with proper sampling techniques, thorough discipline in questionnaire writing and development, and an openness to work until the final moments of a campaign—can be used to accurately predict the views of the Canadian electorate. In fact, no other company in the country comes close to matching our record of both participation and accuracy.

Since 2007, we have covered 13 different federal and provincial electoral processes in Canada. In 10 of these elections (Quebec 2007, Manitoba 2007, Saskatchewan 2007, Canada 2008, Quebec 2008, British Columbia 2009, Nova Scotia 2009, Canada 2011, BC Referendum 2011 and Manitoba 2011), we have provided the most accurate prediction of all pollsters relying exclusively on our online methodology. In the remaining three elections (Ontario 2007, Alberta 2008 and Ontario 2011), only one of the 12 contending parties was called outside the margin of error.

This week, we were the only Canadian pollster to issue a prediction in the two provinces that held elections: Manitoba and Ontario. In Manitoba, our survey showed a high level of support for the governing New Democratic Party (NDP) in Winnipeg, which would translate into a first place finish. We also saw a slight improvement for the provincial Greens, and the Liberal Party losing one quarter of its voters from the 2007 contest. When all the votes were tallied, our prediction for three of the four contending parties was exact, with a difference of only one point for the remaining party.

Ontario provided a different challenge, due to the complexity of the campaign. In previous occasions, our company has gone into field as late as possible to review whether some shifts occur as voters ponder their choices in the final hours of a campaign. In 2008, we were the only pollster to conduct interviews on Thanksgiving Monday, publishing the results on our website a few hours before the blackout period for federal election polls came into effect. In the end, our prediction was the closest to the final outcome.

A similar situation ensued this week in Ontario. Our first survey on the final week of the election showed a very tight race. There were two countervailing forces at play: a highly motivated Tory base hitting up against a Liberal Party that had been gaining noticeable momentum in the 416 area. We therefore decided to go into field with a final poll to ascertain which, if any, of those forces might give either party an edge on election day. Our final survey—the last one published before the Elections Ontario blackout—featured online interviews with 747 absolutely certain Ontario voters, and disclosed that the Liberal momentum had continued to increase as the week wore on, giving the Grits a slight but significant edge. Support for the governing party across Ontario was pegged at 37 per cent and the Progressive Conservatives were pushed to second place. This exact scenario materialized on election night.

Over the past four years, we have witnessed many changes in the Canadian polling business. For starters, more companies are embracing online tools for data collection—a practice that many used to despise not too long ago—including five of the nine firms that covered the 2011 Canadian federal election. However, advances in technology are not enough to ensure accuracy. We are firm believers in taking the pulse of Canadians on a daily basis, not only on specific occasions or just in a few of the country’s provinces. We have made it a habit to look at Canada through unique syndicated studies and assessments of provincial leaders that go beyond the common practice of amalgamating the Prairies into a single entity. And we made the conscious decision to spend more time looking at designing new and innovative question types and focusing on the quality, representativeness and health of our online panel. Rather than partake in the unsubstantiated posturing and pointless bickering that has sadly enveloped much of the industry, ours is a more forward-thinking approach that stresses continuous improvement and thought leadership in establishing best practices for the online polling industry.

The idea of a merger began to fade after the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) achieved official opposition status for the first time in its history four months ago. Layton was supposed to be the main focus, finally getting a chance to launch a bid to head the government from the comfort of Stornoway. The Liberal Party would be in rebuilding mode, trying to reconnect with the voters who looked elsewhere in 2011, particularly in Quebec and Toronto. Only one-in-five voters chose the party that has governed for most of Canada’s life.

The news of Layton’s illness and then his untimely demise evidently moved Canadians, even those who did not like Layton’s policies or felt any particular fondness for the NDP. Support for holding a state funeral was practically universal, and a majority of respondents who voted in the last election—even Conservatives—thought the honour was appropriate.

In May 2010, when Orange Crush was still used to describe a soft drink and not the effect of the NDP in Quebec, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted a survey that looked at possible centre-left merger scenarios. While the Liberal and New Democrat alliance was doomed to flounder under Michael Ignatieff, it reached a tie with the Conservatives under Bob Rae. With Layton at the helm, the new party would have coasted to victory.

The Layton-led merged party would have essentially reproduced the pattern of the Jean Chrétien-led Liberals of the 1990s, with hundreds of seas scattered across Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and little momentum on the West. Still, that would have been enough to form a government if the results had materialized in an election.

Now, the NDP and the Liberals have more serious problems in their hands. Layton’s absence forces a decision on who will become, for better or worse, Stephen Harper’s main sparring partner for the next four years. All three previous opposition leaders were unable to keep their jobs after an election that ended in a Conservative victory. Layton was expected to fare much better due to his combative style and immense popularity, and also because the Tory majority does not force the opposition into constant election readiness.

While an approval rating of 50 per cent is usually a mediocre place to be for an American President, it is a number that very few politicians in Canada have been able to attain, particularly after the arrival of the five-party system. Layton was able to reach that plateau twice during the last federal election campaign. In recent times, NDP politicians in opposition have not connected well with the public, and their approval rating tends to be vastly lower than their voting support, even when facing unpopular incumbents. The British Columbia NDP closed in on the support of 50 per cent of voters in the last days of the Gordon Campbell era, but the approval rating for leader Carole James could not get to 30 per cent.

Layton’s absence will be felt more by the provincial NDP leaders who are having elections this year. Manitoba’s Greg Selinger has remarkably recovered from a difficult start, mired by low name recognition, with a well-received intervention during recent flooding and the return of a professional hockey franchise to Winnipeg. But the situation is much more difficult for Ontario’s Andrea Horwath and Saskatchewan’s Dwain Lingenfeter, who would have certainly welcomed Layton’s magnetism at campaign rallies.

The question before the two centre-left federal parties is simple. The NDP must find a way to sustain the momentum that was started by its most charismatic and successful leader, who had a clear connection to Quebec and broad appeal across English Canada. The Liberals are seeking to start a new era, and may not be interested in any merger that makes them look like the weaker of the two participants, even if they have been tenants at Sussex Drive for decades. The “unite the right” movement only materialized after three unsuccessful elections that resulted in majority governments for the Liberal Party in 1993, 1997 and 2000. At the time, the notion of a centre-right fusion was unthinkable. Now, the merged party that took so long to be created has become the new standard.

Canadian men and women remain deeply divided in their assessment of prostitution. Male respondents are more likely to advocate for some sort of decriminalization that would allow consenting adults to exchange sex for money in a wide variety of scenarios. Female respondents are not very supportive of this notion, and consistently look at prostitution as an exploitation issue. Only someone in dire need, or forced by a family member of partner, would choose this lifestyle.

The brilliant exposés that BC CTV investigative reporters Mi-jung Lee and Jon Woodward have spearheaded over the past few weeks show how easy it is for a Vancouver resident to purchase sexual services inside massage parlours and upscale hotels, a practice that plainly challenges existing regulations. It must be said that half of Canadians are not opposed to this kind of business model. The apparent reaction from many people is that these “businesses” are virtually regulated, and unless the workers are minors or the victims of human trafficking, there should be a mechanism in place to allow these operations to exist and be taxed like any other service.

A glance at the numbers shows that the main preoccupation from women is exploitation. While men are definitely more likely to agree with some form of decriminalization, and support the concept of consenting adults exchanging sex for money, women are not convinced. Female respondents definitely back measures related to safety, particularly the idea of prostitutes operating indoors or in brothels. But, even when pondering options such as massage parlours and escort services openly offering sexual services, women remain concerned.

While many Canadians have become aware of the existence of sex trade entrepreneurs who cater to a clientele at a home or designated place of business, there is still the latent possibility that some of these workers are actually being exploited. Only a carefully designed set of guidelines and regulations, whether municipal, provincial or federal, will ensure that no exploitation takes place.

The reality is that prostitution in Vancouver is out in the open, whether in Craigslist postings, the last few pages of the Georgia Straight, or on the streets of the Downtown Eastside. However, Canadians do not see all exchanges of sex for money in the same light. While a majority agrees with escort agencies and massage parlours, there is an even split on whether offering sexual services on newspaper ads and websites should be legal. However, street prostitution gets a resounding rejection from two thirds of respondents. Canadians, it would seem, are not puritan about what happens indoors. But the notion of prostitutes soliciting on the street is not something they are currently willing to endorse.

In the end, the two sides of the debate have been very passionate, especially in light of the current legal wrangling in Ontario. While many Canadians believe it is time to decriminalize prostitution, and provide an easier way for consenting adults to exchange sex for money, a smaller group is calling for prohibition. The main constants are the fact that seven-in-ten Canadians are unaware of the intricate rules that are presently in place, and that—once informed about this fact—only about one-in-six endorse the status quo. Where we go from here is in the hands of the courts, and in the way politicians react to an issue that does little to build the base or expand it.

The biggest policy question, and one of the thorniest aspects of any attempt to decriminalize the sex trade, is where Canadian society should draw the line between service and exploitation. The case could end up defining when it is acceptable for a person to benefit from the work of a prostitute, whether as a building manager, an administrator, or an entrepreneur.

This article was originally published in the Vancouver Sun’s Community of Interest.

The last three Peruvian presidential elections, conducted after the atrociously flawed 2000 exercise, have been decided in run-offs. In 2001, Alejandro Toledo defeated Alan García by six points. Five years later, García—who had served as the country’s head of state in the 1980s—returned to power after edging Ollanta Humala by five points. This time around, it is Humala who may be positioned for a victory that seemed implausible a few months ago.

Last Sunday, Humala secured 31.73 per cent of the vote, practically identical to his share in the first round of the 2006 contest. In 2006, Humala’s socialistic overtones caused many voters to hold their nose and pick García. Since then, the candidate of the newly minted Win Peru alliance—which includes his Peruvian Nationalist Party (PNP)—has gradually changed his tune. He remains aligned to the left, but has softened his positions drastically. Humala is now more likely to praise Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva than to express fondness for Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. His followers are hoping that this change will actually deliver the victory that was unattainable five years ago.

Humala’s rival in the run-off is Keiko Sofia Fujimori, the daughter of former president Alberto Fujimori who briefly served as first lady during her father’s tenure. Fujimori is one of the best known members of congress, and received 23.5 per cent of all cast ballots as the candidate of Strength 2011. One of the main criticisms levelled against the 35-year-old contender is that she may be willing to issue a pardon for her father, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted of human rights violations. Fujimori has gained support from centre-right voters for her tough stand on crime—an approach that made her father immensely popular in the early stages of his mandate.

As is often the case in Peruvian run-offs, the candidate who is the least avoided will claim the presidency on Jun. 5. Five years ago, Peruvians chose the worst economic manager in the country’s history over a nationalist who was perceived as too radical. Now, the choice is between a kinder, gentler Humala and the whiff of sleaze and abuse that defined the Fujimori era. The state of Peru’s economy, and who is better equipped to handle it, may sway the 44.8 per cent of electors who did not pick either of the two remaining candidates in the first round.

A majority of Americans interviewed in a recent Angus Reid Public Opinion survey leans toward a conviction. However, Assange does have some support and has room to plead his case to the public. This story has electrified public opinion exactly because it exemplifies important generational differences in the U.S. which may have far reaching policy implications as the unplugged generation gets older, more politically powerful and more global.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they are watching the WikiLeaks story unfold “very closely” or “moderately closely”. While a majority believes WikiLeaks was wrong to publish the secret U.S. documents, a large proportion remains undecided (30%) and one-in-five (19%) support the decision to publish. Interestingly, the young—those aged 18-34—are most likely to say they are not sure if the release was right or wrong (36%) and one-in-four (26%) say WikiLeaks was right.

The near immediate reaction from cyber hackers to take down websites they believe are supportive of a conviction of the WikiLeaks founder, such as MasterCard and PayPal, is a likely demonstration of this chasm of opinion around the WikiLeaks release and other larger social issues.

While it is the case that nearly all Americans have internet access online or at work, this survey reveals differences across generations in what is and isn’t appropriate both in cyberspace and in government secrecy. This case has captivated America due to the very differences in values it provokes across the two largest generations in the U.S. who have very different views on government privacy and online communications.

As the fascinating story continues to unfold, there will be more details of this case that come to light to solidify opinion on all sides, young and older Americans alike. This ongoing drama will also likely raise the visibility of government secrecy/distrust, the appropriateness of different types of online actions and communications, and other social issues that quietly divide the United States and also may have major implications on U.S. policies domestically and internationally.

Further to this point, the survey found that more than four-in-ten younger Americans feel the WikiLeaks release is in the public’s interest while a clear majority of their older counterparts (age 55+) feel it’s against the public’s interest (58%)—both groups still have a lot of uncertainty on whether or not the release is in the best interest of the country. The survey does find there is general agreement across all Americans that this release will both “put people’s lives at risk” and “make it harder for the U.S. to advance its foreign policy goals.” However, in both cases the generational divide between young old persists to some significant degree.

In just over two months, Ed Miliband’s arrival and Gordon Brown’s departure have positioned the Labour Party in first place, with a five-point edge over the Conservatives and clearly at the expense of the struggling Lib-Dems.

Since the start of the Coalition Government, the numbers for David Cameron and Nick Clegg have fallen markedly in Angus Reid Public Opinion surveys. The Prime Minister and Conservative leader began his tenure with the approval of 54 per cent of Britons. He is now down to 44 per cent. The drop is more dramatic for the Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader, who started at 52 per cent, and is now at 36 per cent.

The Coalition Government can point to specific instances where the population was supportive of its actions, such as the controversial work placement strategy. However, the decision on tuition fees led to widespread protests and a direct condemnation from the electorate.

Another important question to review is Europe. Ireland’s budget problems have exacerbated the negative feelings of the British population towards the European Union (EU), and now almost half of Britons would vote to leave the continental group in a referendum. The one thing that has remained constant is the population’s deep-seated aversion to adopting the euro. Another policy that is evidently the result of a continental decision—whether to allow prisoners to vote—has also been rejected by most Britons.

In the new year, the biggest test for the Coalition Government will be to get the economy going, and assuage some of the financial concerns that Britons have consistently described since the start of the global crisis.

On the economic front, there has been no discernible change under the Coalition. The new government took over when the economy was rated as “very good” or “good” by 13 per cent of respondents. The numbers have not gone through any significant fluctuation throughout 2010, and only one-in-six Britons foresee better times ahead. Unless these numbers begin to shift, the overall rating for the coalition partners will continue to erode.

Another challenge will come in May, when Britons vote on whether to adopt a new system to elect Members of Parliament. The Tories oppose any changes to existing guidelines, while Labour’s leader and the Lib-Dems have endorsed the move to the Alternative Vote (AV) electoral system. The outcome of the referendum may prove beneficial to one or more parties, even if nothing changes at 10 Downing Street.

Mid-term elections do not usually provide a widely acknowledged victor. Although quotes from the poignant election night speech from future House Speaker John Boehner have made the rounds on television, most of the attention has focused on 2008 Republican Party vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. It has been claimed that, due to the wins by candidates she endorsed, Palin can now be considered one of the frontrunners for the 2012 presidential nomination.

In 2010, Palin actively campaigned for conservative candidates in ten gubernatorial races and 10 senatorial races. Her effect on some of these elections can be considered negligible. In 2010, a victory for a Republican in Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina or Texas was practically guaranteed, with or without Palin.

However, Palin was particularly active in Iowa, where the presidential race will begin in the final weeks of 2011, and Virginia, a state that voted for Obama in 2008 but had not backed a Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

Palin also endorsed Tom Emmer in Minnesota, a state that has not been won by a Republican in a United States presidential contest since Richard Nixon in 1972. At this point, Democrat Mark Dayton leads Emmer by less than 9,000 votes and a recount will not be over until mid-December. The one blemish in Palin’s record was her endorsement of former GOP congressman and perennial immigration critic Tom Tancredo, who failed in his bid to win in Colorado as an American Constitution Party candidate.

In the Senate elections, Palin was hoping to deliver 10 victories, but two did not materialize. In California, Carly Fiorina failed in her bid to unseat Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer. In West Virginia, John Raese was defeated by Joe Manchin. If these two races had gone Republican, Palin would have already been enshrined as a kingmaker. She can still point to some success having campaigned in Pennsylvania for Pat Toomey, who ended up defeating Joe Sestak, and Florida, where Marco Rubio won handily.

Conspicuously absent from this list of important states is Ohio, where the Republicans won both state-wide races. But people in four states that went for Obama in 2008—Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia—have recently seen or heard Palin. She has raised her profile as the 2012 race gets closer.

With the mid-terms out of the way, Palin can concentrate on trying to move some of her personal numbers. In a July Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, 51 per cent of Republicans thought she would make a good president, practically tied with other prospective contenders, such as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

In September, the words used the most by Americans to describe Sarah Palin were foolish (37%), out of touch (32%), and arrogant (31%). While she has not been able to connect with Independents, Republicans are already seeing her as down to earth, honest and intelligent. The big question before Palin’s presidential aspirations can be assessed will be whether these indicators improve in the next few months.