Talk:2006 Canadian federal election

See also:

• Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive1,
• Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive2 and
• Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive3

Dates to be used for opinion polls

There seems to be something of a revert war going on with respect to opinion polls. Please use the date that the survey was conducted, not the release date, as it is what is relevant. If I were to release a poll conducted on the eve of the 1988 election, it would not be reflective of today's political situation, this is why the dates that the questions were asked is what is important. Perhaps a more rational example would be the sponship scandal this spring. Right after the most extreme revelations in the Gomery Inquiry were released, several polls came out. Some showed a steep drop in Liberal support and some showed the status quo. This is because, though polls were released on the same day, some were conducted in the days before the allegations and others in the days after. A day or two can be a lifetime in politics and it is important for people to understand what time period a poll is a snapshot of, not when the snapshot was shown to the public. - Jord 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with using the actual final date the poll was being conducted over the release date. My only issue was, was that the majority of polls from earlier on that were listed (not just by myself), stated the release date -- while your example about a 1988 general election poll makes sense (and I had actually already been thinking of that as I was playing the 'war' game), the way we were doing it before with release dates usually came in with just a few days of the actual release date -- but we do need consistency, and unfortunately I can't be bothered to go and look at all of the previous ones to see if now those reflect the final date of conducting the poll, but I hope they do because if we will change this now, it should be reflective of the whole page

2006

It's time I think to move this page to Canadian federal election, 2006. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 03:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not quite yet. Any election called on or before November 21 could be held in 2005. - Jord 04:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Barring an unexpected mistake by one side, it won't happen. CrazyC83 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't be so sure. Sometimes when people play chicken, the cars actually collide. The Tom 04:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is now practically impossible for the government to fall. The Conservatives didn't put forward confidence today and the next opposition day is Thursday. Even if the BQ (it is their day) puts up confidence, it being a Thursday, the vote would be deffered. In other words, the only way for the government to fall before Nov. 21 now is if a) the government declares a bill confidence; b) a confidence motion comes forward on Thursday and there is unanimous consent to have it voted on immeadiately. - Jord 16:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Practically" is the key word. Let's make this change when we don't have to use a qualifier. Otherwise, we'll be crystal-balling. Ground Zero | t 16:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, hence my original post above saying we should wait until November 21. - Jord 17:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually sold by Jord's second post. Should no non-confidence vote appear on Thursday's order paper (which we'll know mid-afternoon on Wednesday), I say pull the 2006 trigger. The Tom 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why the hurry? Why not just wait until the election is called? Who cares? Peregrine981 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the article is akwardly titled. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 20:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Peregrine981. We've had the current title for this long, why not just wait until an official election day is announced so we aren't doing any cristal-balling? -Arctic.gnome 21:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that it is a good idea to keep the current title until an election is called. There is afterall the, allbeit minute, chance that an election won't happen until 2009. - SimonP

There's also a chance that there won't be a United States Presidential Election in 2008. The line delimiting crystal-balling from waiting-for-absolute-fact is a reasonably fuzzy one, but I think we've now crossed from the territory of "debate exists over in what year this thing will happen" to "there will be an election in 2006." The Tom 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In the case of America, the 2008 election is already official, they know the exactly (to the day) when it will happen. No matter how sure we are that Canada’s government will fall, we should wait until there is actual, official, legal confirmation on the books (which should only be a few days from now anyway). -Arctic.gnome 05:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't absolutely know for a fact there'll be a presidential election on November 4, 2008. It's just widely assumed that the law as it stands now will carry on and a terrorist attack or Bush proclaiming himself Caesar or the Flying Spaghetti Monster ending the world or what have you will not happen. Wikipedia follows the general principle that stuff that we're 99.9% sure will come about is okay to represent in article titling, provided of course, the body text makes it clear that this is a future event and open to ultimate temporal ambiguity. While we don't have a similar degree of certainty about a precise day for this election, getting a polling date isn't entirely relevant when the issue is merely putting a year in the title. I happen to think that with the absence of any confidence motions this week, and legal restrictions ensuring that we wait at least 36 business days before polling day, we now can say the 39th Canadian federal election = 2006 Canadian federal election with roughly the same degree of certainty as XXI Olympic Winter Games = 2010 Winter Olympics. The Tom 06:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with the Tom here. We know for a fact the election will happen in 2006. (Or will by Nov. 21) --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 07:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a law in place that will result in a US presidential election in 2008. There is no such law in Canada, only public statements by political leaders about what they intend to do but haven't done yet. In a few days, this disucssion will likely be moot. Let's wait. Ground Zero | t 14:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is my take, as of this moment, it is impossible for there to be an election in 2005 (unless the Prime Minister goes to the Governor General by Monday and asks for one and she grants his request). All of the opposition leaders say they are united in bring the government down later this year and, should they back down, the Prime Minister has stated that he will call an election sometime in February 2006. In either event there will be an election in 2006, it is just a question of whether or not the polling day will be in Jan, Feb, March or April. - Jord 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It may not be law, but it is a sure bet anyway. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 18:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline cleanup

There are a lot of items in the timeline that were quite relevant when they were added and would have been relevant had the election been called in and around that time but now amount largely to clutter. I would be happy to volunteer to try to clean it up and propose a truncated timeline here, but don't want to do so if it is going to ruffle feathers. Please advise. - Jord 21:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have drafted a proposed timeline at Canadian federal election, 2006/Timeline cleanup, you can see the differences between the current (as 23:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)) timeline and my proposed here. If there are no objections, I'll change this over within the next few days. Jord 23:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, the timeline is overdue for a prunning. - SimonP 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Can an admin kindly delete Canadian federal election, 2006/Timeline cleanup? - Jord 15:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The timeline is missing years. - It starts in November but theres no way to tell whether that's November 2005 or 2004, unless you know the details of the events listed. 23skidoo 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

We've locked the page temporarily due to a persistent vandal. However, if you want to add info, please note it on the talk page and we'll add it for you (until, of course, the vandal goes away and we can unlock the page). Sorry, we know it's not ideal but its the best we can do right now! We don't like it either: it's a lot more work for us and our time could be spent better on other articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys... let's get this page back up and running... this is a very important page, and it is really up to date with the current news. A new EKOS poll came out today -- this page will be one often looked primarily over the next couple of months.

Conservatives against hetrosexual marriage?

I quote from the article: "Most Conservatives oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage, although 26% of Conservative Delegates at the 2005 Biennial Convention voted against one man-one woman marriage". Is this accurate? What do they want, polygamy? Kel-nage 13:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

They probably voted against defining marriage as between one man and one woman, i.e. they voted not to explicitly ban same-sex marriages. - Cuivienen 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia protection

It is regrettable that there are people who vandalize.

I don't know what the software is capable of, but here's my solution:

- members, who can be identified, are allowed real-time changes to articles

- non-members, and members who have not logged-in, cannot make real-time changes, rather can only submit changes to a queue, where they are checked for obvious "clearance - everything must go" vandalism and then cleared to a queue that watches for vulgarities and other small-scale vandalism before they are put into the article.

It would stop a lot of vandalism. People who become members and then vandalize would require some other sort of discipline or flagging.

GBC 19:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• What you suggest has been drafted in one form or another many times. (Actually, a much stricter form of it was tried at Nupedia, a project which ultimately led to the realization that a small team of experts take too long.) Whether it's ultimately good or bad, your proposal flies in the face of time-tested policy and has supermajority opposition. (Sorry to be negative.) Furthermore, the "queue" would probably require software changes, which will happen as soon as you give us a lot of money. Feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Or, if you're really feeling adventurous, ask an administrator about starting a fork, where you can dictate policy. Happy edits! Deltabeignet 05:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV without reverts (I'm looking at you SimonP)

How about telling some folks, both left and right wing (I'm looking at you SimonP), that people who do not agree with their ideology deserve the same right to edit the Wiki as they do without automatic reverts. Edits are much better. We are working towards consensus here. rasblue 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

American Wikipedian has question

Is this thing official yet? I thought it was still being threatened.CaptainAmerica 00:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Not technically official, though 100% certain. The opposition parties, who hold 169 of 308 seats are all planning to vote non-confidence at a vote which cannot be deferred past 5:30 p.m., November 28. If this is somehow averted, it would likely by means of a compromise agreement requiring an election to be called in January and, saving that, the Prime Minister has pledged an election call by March 15. - Jord 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! CaptainAmerica 21:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim Harris

Why is there a picture of Jim Harris? He really has nothing to do with any of this. - 24.43.228.59 16:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually wondered that myself. There is some question as to whether or not Harris and his Green Party are a major party or a minor party. Some would argue they are a major party because they received over 4% of the vote (significantly more than other minor parties, the next best having had 0.3%) and ran candidates in all ridings like the major national parties. Others would argue they are a minor party because they have never won any seats, only recently gained a national organization and are not included (to date) in the leaders' debates. I personally consider them a minor party, however I suspect others may disagree and whomever added him like did so as they view the Greens as a major party. Do we have a consensus on that either way? - Jord 16:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

We promoted the Greens to major party status last election inasmuch as they got a slot in the candidate table and their own paragraph and logo onto the main article page. A fair number of major polls are now prompting the Greens, as represented by their own column on the polling chart. Doubtlessly we're dealing with a normative judgment call here, but I'm personally for uniformly following through with that and according the Greens status apart from the other minor parties. Based on the 2004 outcome there's much bigger gap between the Greens and Christian Heritage (the latter getting 1/14 of the votes of the former) than there is between the Greens and the Bloc (Green approx = 1/3 of Bloc) The Tom 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly support them being included on the candidate tables as if they are running in every seat (or near that) it would be cumbersome to do otherwise, I don't know if Harris having a picture up along the other leaders is appropriate. Almost everyone would recognize the four major leaders, but not so much Harris. - Jord 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

They have been polling pretty steadily at 4% to 5% since the last election. Harris is far more relevent to the English campaign for most English Canadians than Duceppe.Nfitz 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with the last statement (Though I must admit I added the piture in the first place). True, Green has not been considered a "major" party in the past, but the fact that it is now recognized as such by Elections Canada, and that their numbers are growing steadily in the polls, should be good enough reasons to allow Harris's photo. I think it is also very likely that we will be seeing a lot more of Harris and the Greens in this campaign, firstly because of their new funding from Elections Canada (which will allow them to advertise in the media for the first time), secondly because they will, again, be running a full slate of candidates, and thirdly because there is a chance that Harris may even be included in the leaders' debates (in all of these cases, to not have his picture on this page would be, as someone earlier said, "clumsy", besides proving some sort of bias against the party. The criteria, in this case at least, must be to include all major parties, as recognized by Elections Canada, not just by some pundits. - Masterd48 10:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. Elections Canada makes no distinction between major and minor parties, unless you mean that they receive funding which is an automatic for a party that breaks 2% of the vote. I really don't care one way or the other, just think that it is a bit of a stretch. If the Greens were included in the debate then obviously he should be included but so far the Greens are getting far less attention and are lower in the polls than this point in 2004. - Jord 15:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps the best criteria then, is that all parties that have enough votes to receive funding should be included. Every poll I've seen lately puts Green at 4% to 5% except the Environics ... which is presumably the 1 in 20. Green polled 4.3% in the last election and at dissolution in 2006, Green was polling around 6% - so they have dropped a bit. They will likely still get enough votes for funding, so might as well include, based on this criteria. Hmm, but someone removed the picture. And as the person who did it, hasn't been contributing to this discussion, I'm putting it back. That user commented in his deletion that "most media outlets dont consider the greens major" - which is odd, as every newspaper I've seen in the last few weeks show the percentage for all 5 parties, and then Other. Nfitz 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why include him? For one, if you are going to put Jim up, put the leaders of the other parties aswell. The FCP has close to 1% of decided votes, why not put their leader up? For another, he has no seat, and his party has no seat! SFrank85 21:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think where we toying at, is using the list of Parties that get enough votes in the last election, to be provided funding. Which would be the 2% level. I'm not even sure who FCP are ... they must be pretty low below the radar. If you look at this [table] of results from the last election, Green was 5th with 4.3%. Next was the Christian Heritage Party that got 0.3% ... that's 1/14th of what Green got. There is no FCP party listed, and those with no affiliation were less than 1%, so I don't know where you get the 1% value from - perhaps you have a reference?. I haven't seen anyone listed smaller than Green on any of the polls (not that I've checked them all!). Also another argument for using these 5 leaders, is these are the same 5 parties that are explictly listed further down the page in the polls section, and on the list of candidate pages, with a separate column. It just seems more consistent this way ... unless one proposed changing those too.Nfitz 22:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

FCP is Family Coalition Party, a provincial party in Ontario, not a federal party, and therefore completely irrelevant to the federal election. Granted, FCP members/candidates might also run for the CHP or other parties, as they have in the past. GBC 06:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to put this to a vote. Pellaken 11:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that the Greens have no seats in parliament is a straw man argument. That argument might be relevant to a page on the parliament of Canada but has no meaning for an election page. In the election the Greens are running a candidate in every single riding. That is to say, every single elector in the country has the option of voting Green. They will participate in every single all-candidate's forum. Compare that to the Bloc, who have influence in parliament, but no effect on the voting for half the country. --maclean25 02:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Same sex marriage

The paragraph about same-sex marriage seems a little unlikely to me. Is the issue not kind of dead at the moment. Same-sex marriage has been completely legalized across the country already. What's left to talk about? How likely is it that the conservatives, should they get into power, are going to suddenly declare gay marriage illegal again and nullify all the marriages that have already taken place?

It just seems to me, and everyone else I know, that gay marriage is kind of a done deal, over with, which is why I'm puzzled by the implication in that section that the same-sex marriage issue is going to get some kind of play in this election. I'd be willing to bet that the conservatives don't even bother bringing it up during the campaign.

Gay marriage is only a hot button issue to a few Albertans and those who vote for the Christian heritage Party. 207.6.31.119 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the comments by Harper and others during the debate, there is certainly a fear among many people, that a vote for the Conservatives, will be a vote to open the door on this again. In the last election, the Conservatives wouldn't even stand up and clearly say that they wouldn't try and change the abortion laws, so even that became an issue. If abortion could come such a major issue in the 2004 election, then why not Same Sex in 2006? .... oh hang on, just saw this. Harper has already start making announcements about making same-sex a major issue in this campaign ... from [Canadian Press]"A Conservative government would move to restore the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supports the idea". I guess this is now a hot-button issue for the entire country! Nfitz 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Harper resurrected it; whether the electorate cares is another matter. From what I hear of opinion polls, most people consider the issue done and over with... Radagast 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The CBC poll says that 66 per cent think that the issue is settled [1]. But when has Harper cared what Canadians think? Ground Zero | t 16:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Harper has stated that if elected he would introduce legislation to restore the unconstitutional definition, but allow a free vote, even among cabinet ministers. And that he would include a "grandfather clause" for people who have already been married. Carolynparrishfan 18:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and I want to be part of an institution based on discrimination and inequality. Maybe I can join a private club that bars women and Jews, too. Not. Ground Zero | t 19:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What Harper actually said is that he'd have a free vote on a "MOTION" asking the house if they would like to re-examine the issue of SSM. If the motion was voted down he would consider the matter settled but if it was passed they would hold another vote to pass legislation allowing the government to revert to the traditional definition of marriage while allowing SSM couples to form a civil union as they do in the UK. The traditional definition is not unconstitutional; the Supreme Court of Canada said that the definition was completely the jurisdiction of parliament. Thanks to the Supreme Court opinion, the Notwithstanding Clause would not need to be used to maintain the traditional definition. December 12, 2005.

• "The traditional definition of marriage is not uncontitutional". Says you. The high courts of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Yukon, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick say otherwise. They all said that it violated the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to rule on the consitutionality of the definition in effect at the time because the Government had introduced amendments to it, so the Court felt there was no need for their opinion. And then there was the matter of the over one hundred legal scholars from universities across the country who signed a letter saying that they believed the notwithstanding clause would be necessary to overrule the courts of those nine provinces and territories. Ground Zero | t 20:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

First "true" non-confidence vote?

I was watching the vote of no confidence on the CBC and Peter Mansbridge said something about it being the first time in Canadian history that the government has been defeated with a direct non-confidence motion. I'm assuming that he was referring to the fact that the government was defeated on an opposition motion that explicitly declared it a motion of no confidence against the government (more-or-less in those words), rather than the more typical non-confidence motion that is inferred by a lost vote on a budget or a speech from the throne (which are confidence motions by implication if defeated, but not by design, whereas the motion of 28 Nov, 2005 was introduced solely as a matter of confidence). Can anyone verify this? If Mansbridge's observation is accurate, it might be a note-worthy footnote for the article. Rod ESQ 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mansbridge was largely correct, when Joe Clark's government fell in 1979 it was on a sub-amendment to the budget motion which struck "that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government" and replaced with "that this House has lost confidence in the government". So, this is the first time the government has fallen on a main motion which specified confidence, but it has falled on an explicitly confidence amendment before. - Jord 15:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Article size

So with seven weeks to go in this thing, we're already sitting at around twice the recommended article size. I realize the the 32K recommendation is for text, and excludes tables and charts, but this article is already long. Any ideas for cutting chunks off to branch articles? Ground Zero | t 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The poll section is huge; the timeline is huge; the issues are pretty huge, but also more germane. Candidates and targets are also more 'dry'; we may want to keep the main article to narrative exposition, and put facts and figures in the separate articles. Radagast 22:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggesting splitting off the following sections into seperate articles, with links: Timeline (which can only get a lot bigger), Opinion polls (ditto), and Issues. For the first two, it might be worth keepign the last week of info in. For Issues, maybe give a summary of the biggest issues with the 4 parties' policies. On a more general point... a good example of how Wikipedia has handled a recent major election, see United Kingdom general election, 2005. The main lesson learnt was to be prepared as much beforehand as possible. For example, for results (cf UK results), listing every parlimanetry seat in heavily sectioned article, with the table pre-prepared. (the colours were added later). Depsite being from the UK, I have a hefty interest in Canadian politics for varoius (complicated) reason, so I expect I'll be involved with this quite heavily. Tompw 23:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, now. We've had scary-huge seat-by-seat tables on this side of the pond for nearly two years. The Tom 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed and suitably humbled. Hmm... all you need to do to show who's is change a cell's colour or similar. Tompw 01:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

2006 Canadian federal election opinion polls

• Can now be found at 2006 Canadian federal election opinion polls. SFrank85 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved the polls from the past week back onto the main page. We should keep the most recent polls in the main article so that people don't have to visit another page to see recent opinions. Opinion polls from April and May are less likely to be interesting to an observer. - Cuivienen 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of candidates

The number of candidates listed for the various parties in the table near the bottom only shows numbers for the five major parties, and shows dashes instead for the minor parties. I am going to assume that these dashes indicate a lack of information, and am going to therefore update the entry for the Libertarian Party with the correct number. If I have misunderstood the correct use of this table, please post here to explain it. --Dglynch 13:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nope, you've got it exactly right. Please update as you get more information. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the source for the information? CrazyC83 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Various sources, party websites, news articles, etc. Once nominations close we'll be able to get final official numbers from Elections Canada. - Jord 16:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Swing ridings

The section on swing ridings is very interesting, but unfortunately, it's a bit confusing. Listing each riding in a column under the logo of a party that doesn't currently hold it is counter-intuitive, and it took me a long time to be sure of what was going on. David 01:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point, perhaps we should change the name back to "targets" which would make more sense for the format in which it is in. - Jord 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two types lists you can do... one is a party's most vulnerable seats (held by the party by the smallest percentage), and the other is party's top target seats (seats where party came 2nd by the smallest percentage). Can also highlight most/least secure ridings nationally. Should this be put in a seperatepage? Tompw 01:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

SES polls

The frequency of SES polls is somewhat misleading, as they did in the 2004 election, they are doing rolling polling. Their current formula has them make 400 calls/night and then they take the three most recent nights results to get a pool of 1200 surveyees. Essentially, every night they release a poll with 1/3 new data and 2/3s old data. This being the case, I am not sure if we should list them every day as a new poll, but I am not sure how else to deal with it? Thoughts? - Jord 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've pondered that. But it is a new poll every day. And it is a poll release every day. And that data is quite interesting to see, as it shows trends quite quickly. So I wouldn't NOT want to list the most recent poll. I can see arguments for showing and not showing each poll. Perhaps a footnote? Perhaps only showing the most recent on on this page, and all of them on the detailed page? Nfitz 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not a new poll, it is a 1/3 new poll. I would suggest you list the poll each day but when the next day comes out, you drop the old listing such that you have the polls every three days and thus with new data. i.e. today we would have the Dec 5 poll, but we would not have the Dec 4 or 3 polls listed on the main page as they are using some of the same data. All of them could be listed on the larger Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006 page. -Jord 15:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Though later today we will get the Dec 4th poll. The Dec 5th polling would be done this evening, and released on December. One problem though, is that if you have every third poll, then every time you put in a new poll, you have to resurrect the poll from 3-days earlier that was already deleted ... Nfitz 17:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I removed every second and third poll from the main page. I commented them out actually, so that they are still there, so when the next daily SES poll comes in, someeone can unhide the ones 3-days previously, etc ... Nfitz 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And someone unhid them again ... not sure why ... I'll rehide them. Perhaps the person who unhid can comment here so we can get consensus? Nfitz 6 December 2005

No-one else has been bothering to only list 1 out of 3 SES polls on this page; and no-one has had any concerns about the SC polls having the same issue, so I have stopped showing just 1 out of 3 polls on this page. Too much work when cutting and pasting new results from detailed page! Nfitz 14:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Official Candidates

Hi everyone, in case anyone else has not noticed yet the official candidates are now slowly trickling onto the elections canada website. I will post links here for easy reference --Cloveious 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Officially Nominated from Elections Canada so far as of 17:41, 2 January 2006 (MST). Nominations should be final by the end of the day, Wednesday 4 January, once the last ones are verified.

308 Conservative (100% of ridings now covered)

308 New Democratic Party (100%)

307 Liberal (99.7%)

305 Green Party (99.0%)

75 Bloc Québécois (100% of Quebec)

70 Marxist-Leninist* (22.73%)

68 Independent (20.13%, or 62 of 308, ridings have at least one independent)

41 Christian Heritage Party (13.31%)

27 Canadian Action (8.77%)

24 Progressive Canadian (7.8%)

21 Communist (6.82%)

18 Marijuana (5.84%)

7 Libertarian (2.27%)

5 No Affiliation (1.62% of ridings have at least one non-affiliated candidate)

3 First Peoples National (0.97%)

2 Western Block (2.17%, or 2 of 92 ridings in four provinces)

1 Animal Alliance (0.325%)

• Alberta
• British Columbia
• Manitoba
• New Brunswick
• Newfoundland & Labrador
• Northwest Territories
• Nova Scotia
• Nunavut
• Ontario
• Prince Edward Island
• Quebec
• Saskatchewan
• Yukon

At the moment, Outremont and Laurier-Sainte-Marie have nine candidates (including three independents in Outremont), more than any other riding. Four ridings have eight candidates. GBC 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

These links are not working for me - Jord 15:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wierd, they work fine for me in Firefox. --Cloveious 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange, they now work for me as well. Must have been a hiccup on Elections Canada's site when I tried. - Jord 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I will convert the main grid in the article over to these numbers when there is at least one nomination from every province By the way candidate nominations close January 2, 2006. --Cloveious 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Monday, January 2, 2006, the 21st day before polling day, at 2:00 p.m. local time in the returning officer's office. Candidates have until 5 p.m. to withdraw. However, the confirmation process may not be complete for 48 hours, and papers can be rejected if they are not in proper order, with no time available to correct the deficiency. GBC 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep your right I made a typo, I got my information from here [2] --Cloveious 02:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a useful quick link to the lists of candidates. Using WordPerfect and QuattroPro to paste in and then sort by province/party/riding, and the above links, I am daily updating my QP spreadsheet with the names of the candidates. On or after election day, I can then add the vote counts in each riding to get the votes by party and percentages. GBC 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Marxist-Leninist candidate in Jeanne-le-ber appears to have withdrawn on January 2. GBC 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics are not dumb

One of the vandalisms posted the remark "Politics are dumb".

Politics is the process, whether we think it's ideal or not, by which we choose the people who decide our taxation, laws, national defence, transportation regulations, Internet oversight, etc.

If politics is corrupt, I attribute it to this: LACK of involvement!!

Bad politics are the result of good people not getting involved! My belief is that every single Canadian should: (1) join the political party that best represents what they believe to be right, (2) come out to meetings of that party, (3) help elect convention delegates who they believe will faithfully represent those values, (4) help financially support candidates they believe have the integrity to faithfully represent those values, (5) vote for those candidates at nomination meetings and again in general elections, (6) volunteer for their party between and during elections to help communicate the party's message.

With the thorough neglect of this involvement, a few ambitious people, some of whom are corrupt, are left to take control of parties, nomination processes, policy conventions and, therefore, governments. It is given to us to take that control back from them; too few people use it. And the worst of it is, they give corruption as the reason they don't want to be involved, when it is their lack of involvement that has allowed the corrupt to take control!

GBC 02:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Stategic Counsel Polls

The Strategic Counsel polls are not unique. Their Dec 6 poll is Dec 4-6. Their Dec 5 poll is Dec 3-5. Their Dec 4 poll is Dec 1-4. I'm not quite sure of the timing ... but I think if we are only going to show every third SES poll in the summary page, we should be doing the same with Strategic Counsel? Thoughts? Nfitz 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Martin still Prime Minister in the interim?

Paul Martin, 67, Canada's Prime Minister, and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This is Martin's picture's caption in the article - is he still, technically, Prime Minister, as Parliament has been dissolved? Erath 19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the parliament and the cabinet remain in place until they resign or are dismissed by the Governor General. A resignation would happen upon their defeat in the election and a dismissal would occur if they lost confidence and would not step aside. - Jord 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Erath 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And to clarify what Jord said, he remains prime minister until a new government is sworn in. Should the NDP form the government after the election, there would be a transition period of typically 2-3 weeks during which Paul Martin would remain prime minister until Jack Layton is sworn in. Ground Zero | t 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a tempest in a teapot in early 1980. Clark was making certain decisions, and when criticized about it, he noted that Trudeau did the same between May 8 and July 9, 1974, when he was in a technical state of loss-of-confidence. Basically, a PM still is in authority in a care-taker role, and can be expected to undertake important housekeeping decisions. If they were extremely crucial and long-lasting, I could imagine a statesman consulting with his most likely successors to get their input, but the incumbent is ultimately the one who decides, at least unless the GG decides otherwise, at which point the GG would advise the PM, and if the PM refuses the advice, the PM traditionally must resign, and the GG would call upon someone else to form a caretaker government. GBC 22:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a good elaboration. And something to keep in mind if one ever finds oneself in that position.... Ground Zero | t 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent vs. No Affiliation

What is the difference between them? CrazyC83 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no real difference, it is just an option for candidates to chose one or the other. The best analogy I could give you would be the choice between swearing or solemnly affirming something. The law says if you are not endorsed by a party, "a candidate must indicate on the nomination papers whether he or she wishes to be designated on the ballot by the term 'independent,' or to have no designation appear." So the difference would be "Independent" appears under "party name" for an independent and there is a blank space for party name if you are "no affiliation". - Jord 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An independent candidate is listed as such on the ballot, and has probably decided (s)he is not associated with any political party. A no-affiliation candidate has absolutely nothing underneath his/her name, and may represent a political party that does/did not meet registration requirements. From personal experience, I can speak to the latter - I was nominated by a political party that did not meet the 50-candidate rule in effect prior to 2004; all 46 of us were listed without anything beneath our names; in the common vernacular, we were "independents", but not technically correct, since we were acting in common cause the same way as the 301 Liberal candidates or the 301 NDP candidates. This part of the election act was struck down by the courts in the ruling on the Figueroa case, and now only one candidate is required for registration. Provincial election acts can differ, and in the Yukon, there are only two options: Independent, or a recognized party, the latter required to meet assorted requirements including a minimum of eight candidates; therefore, so-called independents can include people with a definite party philosophy. GBC 05:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true but a group of allied candidates could just as well all register as independents and a bonafide independent can run with nothing under their name. For instance, Chuck Cadman ran in the last election as "no affiliation", i.e. nothing under his name, not as an independent. - Jord 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of candidates

The number of candidates column now has two numbers in each cell: one in parentheses and one in not. There is no explanation about why there are two numbers. Enquiring minds will want to know. Ground Zero | t 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

First number - officially confirmed and registered with Elections Canada. Second number in brackets - nominated by the parties, not necessarily registered yet with EC. CrazyC83 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Election night publication ban

I was reminded of the publication ban as the challenge to it has been accepted by the Supreme Court today but it probably won't be heard until after the election. Although the Wikipedia servers are outside of Canada, most people contributing to this page will be inside. Is the plan to hold off on posting results until the polls are closed in BC? - Jord 16:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends. I think in the past we've tended to do this anyway, but if there's interest in publishing them earlier, I'm happy to update them myself if I can get my hands on the information to begin with. Ambi 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the policy should be to not post election results until they have been received from a verifiable source. Since that source is generally the mainstream media, and the media has a publication ban until the polls are closed, the article couldn't really have any results in it until after the polls close. My memory isn't very good, but I think that's the way things went down last time. -- timc | Talk 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We should not do anything in contravention of Canadian law or that may put Wikipedia, an American concoction, in potential jeopardy. If that means holding off on posting results, so be it. Besides: we can merely provide links to media outlets or other sources that decide to post results without Wp being liable. (Please don't think this rigid, but more what could happen – I think – if results are posted prematurely.) E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the mainstream media, the results are broadcast by them in the regions where the polls have closed, i.e. if you were to watch an Atlantic Canadian television station, they would be showing the results before the polls were closed. - Jord 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't bound by Canadian law and neither am I, which is why I offered to do it. That said, I think Timc has the right idea. Ambi 00:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Canadian who wants to know the early reasults can find them online, so it only makes sense for Wikipedia to have results. Note that in Canada no riding will have any results until all polls close in that riding anyway, and polls in BC close only 30 minutes later than most of the rest of Canada while very few ridings (ie. the Maritimes) close before most of the rest of Canada. Thus, I see little risk that reporting results as they are available will affect the outcome. Anarchist42 00:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best to play it safe, and hold off publication. No point in tempting fate. Tompw 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, only 32 out of 308 ridings report early; by the time polls close in BC (30 minutes later than most of the nation) most other ridings haven't even reported yet. I see nothing to temp. Anarchist42 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why Elections Canada simply refrains from giving out any results until the last polls close. The poll results are supposed to be reported to the returning officer, who reports to Ottawa although there are media present at the returning office. Why not just have a reporting blackout until the last polls close? Besides, in most ridings, the result is not really authoritative until more of the polling divisions report. GBC 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes: why tempt fate? In any event, we should not be wondering why it's in place or possibly challenging the law by posting results prematurely. By doing so, there's an inference that we should contravene Cdn. law because the servers are in the US; yet the editors (presumably) are in 'Canuckistan'. Though more clarity regarding this is desired, this sounds like wikilawyering.

GBC - Elections Canada does not release the results, the media obtains them from other sources, mostly from candidates who have scrutineers who call in the results as soon as the counting is done in a given poll. - Jord 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides:

Wikipedia isn't really a news service (point 5). We can still have our cake and eat it too by merely providing sources/links to prematurely published results, and then update everything in Wp once the ban is over. Patience is a virtue, and this will obviate any potential impropriety on our end. I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't see why yet or until the ban is reversed. (Of course, maybe I'll start smoking a different sort of weed ... :)) E Pluribus Anthony 16:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As a 'polical junkie' who lives in BC, I hate having only 30 seconds of 'game time'; the rest of the nation gets to watch the action unfold, so for us in lotus land it's like only seeing the last minute of a hockey game. I see no way that allowing BCers to see what's happening in the last 30 minutes before polls close here is a problem (except for unwarranted fear). Anarchist42 16:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Coming from a political junkie living in Hell, I empathise, but I don't think Wp is the place to satisfy this sorta lust (no matter how well-intentioned) for up-to-the-minute information in such a manner and possibly breaking the law ... wherever it is. Maybe Wikinews? E Pluribus Anthony 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Anarchist42. I'm a BC'er too, and I always like seeing the election results start from zero. You know, I wish Elections Canada would adopt this rule regarding the counting of votes: "Don't start counting votes until all the polls have closed, nationwide." It would solve the problem of keeping election results out of open polls, although it would create the problem of having Newfoundlanders count their votes well into the next morning. That side problem could be solved by holding the actual vote on one day, then delaying the vote counting until the following morning.  Denelson83  09:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(Continueing the above thread, but the number of colons was getting silly)... out of interest, how quickly is counting done? In the UK, mnost results aren't released until 3-4 hours after polls close. I agree that WP shoudl not publish the results as there is no point in risking the wrath of the law, but equally we can give links to other news organisations. Also, you could always prepare the results for a particular region as the ycome in, and then can publish the lot when all polls have closed. Tompw 16:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have my own vote reform notion I've had for over a decade... if not two decades. Move election day to Wednesday, make it a national holiday (one extra holiday every 2-4 years is not much to ask of the economy) that can't produce a long weekend, and open the polls for 10 hours simultaneously across the country. You don't need 12 hours (as is now allowed) if people aren't constrained by hours at their places of employment. The polls could be open 11:30 am-9:30 pm in Newfoundland, and 7 am to 5 pm in BC/Yukon, and then the counting all begins at once. GBC 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Parties

I am just passing on by but before I go I'd like to say that I love the article, I like how there is talk about some parties possibily entering the election and the list of parites that are running. Usually only 4 or 5 parties are mentioned but having them all makes the article much more interesting and complete in my opinion. --ShaunMacPherson 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Senate Reform

I added a few more sentences on the issues page under the parlimentary reform page. I think it's a really important issue. I'll hopefully make an entire page titled 'Canadian Senate Reform' which it can be linked to. I'll get to this once I begin Christmas holidays; any input is welcome.--Jaderaid 07:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Canadian Senate Reform"? There's no such thing. ;-) Ground Zero | t 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure there is. :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can hope. I'd really like to have an article outlining some of the major problems of the last 30 or so years.--Jaderaid 06:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Our hard work recongized

From this week's The Hill Times:

File:Hilltimes-dec19.PNG

- Jord 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Helping out with election information

Not really sure where to post this or something, but I remember seeing somewhere a list of people who are willing to help out with the election information. I've editted a few times on wikipedia, but mainly just reading. I've done quite a bit of work on other wiki sites and express a great interest in Federal politics. I am working on a campaign here in my riding, and am interested in learning more about the other ridings and parties throughout Canada. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I was wondering, is there anything I can do to help you guys out with this project? Thanks. --Omnieiunium 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The more, the merrier! (And the better the encyclopedia.) Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Leader picture sizes

I'm curious why the leaders' pictures are sized as they are. They're almost in order by their presence in the last parliament, but by that measure Gilles Duceppe should come before Jack Layton. I was about to change them around, but I thought I'd ask first. --Llewdor 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a huge difference. It's just that Duceppe has little relevance outside of Quebec. The NDP have more support overall, it's just so spread out that the Bloc elect more MPs. Do what you wish, but I felt I should mention that.--Jaderaid 20:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

They're different sizes because the same pixel size gives different image sizes. If you want to fiddle around and make them all the same size, go right ahead. - Cuivienen 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about ridings

I just redid the Avalon (electoral district) article and was wondering what the ±% is based on. Is it based on previous elections information or what? --Omnieiunium 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What gains or losses the party has had in percentage of the vote. Merged parties (like the CA and PC to Cons in 2004) are counted based on their previous combined totals. - Cuivienen 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)