Jump to content

Talk:2006 Canadian federal election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"It involves four parties, and no two party coalition holds a majority of the seats."

This statement is not entirely true. The Liberal-NDP bloc and the Conservative-BQ bloc both fall short of a majority, but neither are in formal coalition. A Liberal-Conservative or Liberal-BQ bloc would present a majority and is a very distinct possibility on some issues. The Liberals and Conservatives will vote together against the BQ and NDP on child porn legislation and, if the government should support it, the US Missile Defence program. I am not sure if this is worth noting in the article as, so far, on confidence matters it has aligned as Liberal-NDP vs Conservative-BQ with independent Chuck Cadman holding the balance of power. Thoughts? -- Jord 16:45 8 Nov 04 (UTC)

Date in title

I realize the 'pedia standard is to have the year of the election in the title, but there is nothing saying the 39th general election will be this year. Is there any other way we could title this and keep within naming standards? Radagast 13:17, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that moving it to "39th Canadian federal election" would probably be best. - SimonP 15:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
A good guide could be UK general election, 2005/06.. not sure what we'd call it though because it could be anything right up to 2009... I think Canadian federal election, 2005/6/7/8/9 would be a bit cumbersome!! - Jord 18:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP on this - 39th general is a good approach, and the article should be moved to the year format when the election is eventually called. Kevintoronto 17:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've pasted my debate (bridged from each other's talk pages) with SimonP below.

I am a little concerned that you made the move of the article when no consensus had been reached despite the fact that Canadian federal election, 2005 is not entirely accurate. I would point out that UK general election, 2005/06 provides something of precedent. Also, the format "political division, date" is the established Wikipedia naming convention. - Jord 04:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
SimonP, I would appreciate hearing your comments, I think that the page should be moved back to Canadian federal election, 2005 but I would like to hear your point of view before making such a request. - Jord 16:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
With the budget backed by the Conservatives it is almost certain there will be no election in 2005, so 2005 Canadian election is a misnomer. - SimonP 17:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
That is not necessarily the case, there are other matters of confidence that could come up that would force an election in 2005 and Martin could well go to the polls willingly should he be on the right side of a major issue. I am not arguing though that there will be an election in 2005, I am pointing out that 39th Canadian federal election does not meet Wikipedia naming convention standards. I would suggest Canadian federal election, 2005/06, Canadian federal election, 200x or perhaps even Canadian federal election, 2009 with the article stating that "though it is likely there will be an election before 2009, the 39th general election must be held by that time". - Jord 18:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good point, I have altered the naming conventions. - SimonP 18:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean you changed the convention!? I don't think the solution to your having named something that contradicts a convention is to change that convention! - Jord 20:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that Canadian federal election, 2005 is not entirely accurate, I don't think that 39th Canadian federal election is suitable. First, if you are going to use the term 39th, then it would be more accurate to call it 39th Canadian general election, though I do not think that that is any more desirable. Second, the Wikipedia standard is the format Political division, date, I do not think SimonP's solution of changing the standard is the best way to go about it. We see that the solution used for the UK was UK general election, 2005/06, though that doesn't necessarily work here because there are four possible years. I would say that one of my options that I suggested to SimonP would be more in keeping with the naming convention AND easier for Wikipedians and other viewers to follow. It is a bit non sequitur to go from Canadian federal election, 1867, Canadian federal election, 1872 ... Canadian federal election, 2000, Canadian federal election, 2004 to 39th Canadian federal election.

For ease, I've summarized some of my suggestions below:

I am sure there are other (probably better) options, but I think we need to follow the other election formats so that users can figure out where this page is easily. - Jord 21:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As long as the other reasonable titles are redirects this article will easily be found. - SimonP 21:52, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that an inaccurate title ought not be used, however I am reluctant to support a cumbersome name that would not be easy for others to follow, regardless of redirects. There are other examples where not necessarily correct but more common and understandable terms have been used in political articles. For instance Bill C-250 links to an article about homosexual hate crimes legislation, when, in fact, that is incorrect. Bill C-250, today, is An Act to provide cost-of-production protection for the family farm. Bill numbers only last as long as the life of a parliament, however these names are often commonly known: everyone politically aware in Canada knows that Bill C-24 is about political financing, but few would know it is actually called An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). In the same vein, everyone knows that the last election was in 2004, but not all would know it was the 38th general election, the same goes for the next. Don't get me wrong, I do not support Canadian federal election, 2005 because it is not correct. However, I think we have to find an alternative that less politcally aware readers would relate to. - Jord 22:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SimonP, I see you have made several of my suggestions redirects. Please hold off for a second, those suggestions of mine may or may not be the best way to go. I am trying to reach a consensus here before we make further (perhpas unnecessary) changes to articles / additions to Wikipedia! - Jord 22:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is a case where there's really no easy answer. Every possible answer violates some Wikipedia convention or other, either by giving an untenable appearance of certainty to an inherently uncertain topic, or by violating naming conventions, or by introducing unacceptable levels of complexity into the title. I think we have to live with either CFE, 2005 or 39th CFE; I don't see any other viable way to resolve this. However, I have to absolutely oppose "changing the naming conventions" without any discussion or consultation. A naming convention is not for one person to decide. Bearcat 05:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep 2005 as the title until it is clear that there will not be an election in 2005 (which will be when the fall session ends, since there are economic statements in the fall which need to be voted on). Then change it to 2006, then if necessary 2007, etc. (but it will probably be in 2005 or 2006) - 24.235.186.61 04:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Title should now be changed to Canadian federal election, 2005. (unsigned)

No, the election hasn't been called. There is a small chance that it won't be in 2005, but that chance still exists, so the title should not be changed until a 2005 election becomes a certainty, not just a strong probability. Ground Zero 13:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidates

I've decided to add Candidate Tables for the next election, I would hope nobody deleated this because I worked really hard on this-Jack Cox

Looks good, but the tables should look more like those for the last election: Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004: All on one page Earl Andrew 05:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should the Conservatives really be listed as CPC? The Liberals aren't LPC or the NDP the NDPC

Election

Any guesses at what the results may be?

  • Libs: 120-140 seats
  • Cons: 80-100 seats
  • BQ: 40-50 seats
  • NDP:20-30 seats
  • sorry Mr Harris, none for you!!

These guesses are pretty general but there are some problems with them. -if NDP ar the big gainers, liberals are going to be the losers - right now the bloc will for sure match their 54 and won't be losers - how much can the conservatives really lose, i think they have a better chance of staying the same or gaining.

so here is what i think...

  • Libs: 110 seats
  • Cons: 114 seats
  • BQ: 57 seats
  • NDP: 25 seats
Comment Not necessarily... the NDP could take 6 or 7 seats from the Conservatives in SK and in both GTA and Vancouver there were a number of Conservative seats where the NDP finished second. They'd take their seats from about half and half. It is pretty impossible to speculate at this point because we don't know when and how the election will come to be. Who forces the election, whether or not Gomery is over, etc makes a big difference in the outcome. - Jord 02:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with that. With most NDP voters being left of centre, logic would dictate that growing strength for them would mean more of a blow to the Liberals. And with the Conservatives being out of power, what motivation would voters have to throw their MPs out of office? 69.47.102.177 21:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The wonders of the first past the post system. Here's how it works: in Upper Moose Elbow--Dried-up-River-Bed riding in 2004, Mr. Conservative got 40 votes, Ms. Newdemocrat got 35 votes, Mr. Liberal got 25 votes. This time, 15 Liberal voters defect because of Gomery -- 12 to the NDP, and 3 to the Conservatives. The result: Ms. Newdemocrat wins with 47 votes, beating Mr. Conservative's 43 votes and Mr. Liberal's 10 votes. So even though Mr. C win more votes, he still loses. Polls show that Liberals are more likely to go to the NDP than to the Ocnservatives (I think it is a 2/3 - 1/3 split). Ground Zero 22:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know a good site that is already speculating for this coming election?

Right now: Conservative 105-125 (I say 117), Liberal 100-120 (I say 105), Bloc Quebecois 55-65 (I say 62), NDP 18-24 (I say 21), others 1 (Chuck Cadman, unless back in the CPC fold)

Logos

Why is it that on this website, the conservative logo is the only one that does not have their name in it. They should have one. --Esto 02:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not true, some of the Liberal ones don't. Look at the tables. WestJet

Poll Numbers

To whatever anonymous bloke that thought I put down the wrong Ekos numbers, and wrote so on the article page: The numbers I put down were simply rounded to be like all the other numbers. I de-rounded the other numbers, to be consistant with your change. If you have a problem with something like that, write it here.

--Volrath50 20:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*The latest poll by Compas was removed. Jordan O'Brien (Jord.ca): "The Compas poll was done in one night with a very small sample size and is not reliable. It is enough to show a trend in the direction of the Conservatives but the actual numbers are meaningless." NoDice.ca , Canada's election projection website doesn't have it on their latest poll showings, either.*

The Compas poll should be on the main page, there is a "Robbins SCE" "poll", and they are a joke in terms of polling companies. A poll shouldn't be removed just because it has a small sample.

--Volrath50 15:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bloc Quebecois Targets

I know that there are 20 riding targets for all of the other parties, however, after the top 13 targets for the BQ you reach the Prime Minister's riding, which was won by a landslide margin of 25.8%. If memory serves correct a student ran in this riding for the BQ instead of a serious candidate, thus it seems innapropriate to even have LaSalle—Émard as a riding target for the BQ. You might as well have Mount Royal as a target. I'm going to delete LaSalle—Émard as a target.

Comment removed by author. (05:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) Majromax 22:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

This talk page is intended for discussion of the article and viable edits to make to it, not amateur punditry. Please, only post seat predictions if they are from a major official poll, don't post personal bets or guesses for how the next election will turn out.

There are only 6 safe seats for the Liberals in Quebec, all in montreal. The cut off is just after Paul Martin's riding. The issue of paul martin losing LaSalle—Émard has come up a few times. I don't see why they wouldn't make it a target when they are soing so well in Quebec. It should stay on. At the very least we should wait for the campaign until you know for sure if it is not a target. 13 is an unlucky number to have anyways, happy friday the 13th!--Esto 23:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC) I would add that recent poll numbers suggest that LaSalle—Émard will be a lot closer than last time. The Liberals are -19% while the Bloc is +7%.--Esto 21:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I originally had 20 target ridings for the BQ, which listed all the Liberal ridings in Quebec except Mont-Royal, but someone removed some of them, and put a cap at 15% margin. Far be it for me to revert those changes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Budget Bills Pass

Revert of changes by Arithmomaniac38

  • I'm tentatively reverting the recent changes by said wikiauthor, he added the following paragraph:

There has been much talk over how the Conservative government would run if elected. The Conservative party is partly a result of Western provincial alienation, and the Bloc Québécois are heavily focused on French-Canadian rights. It would be very difficult for this government to function as a coalition, especially since the rise of the Bloc Québécois is feared by many Canadians. If the Bloc Québécois choose to break up the government, then the Liberals woudl immediately call a vote of no confidence and call an election for the 40th parliament.

While I feel that this is probably accurate, it's also speculative, incomplete, and not really germane to the subject of the election itself. If the stability of a potential Conservative minority government becomes an issue during the election, then it would be fair to report on the controversy -- but not in this style, and certainly not yet. -- Majromax 05:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not posting something worthy fo Wikipedia. I am fairly new at this. --Arithmomaniac38 16:13, 20 May 2005 (PDT)

  • Don't worry about it, Arithmo -- that's why it's so easy to edit stuff around here. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you contribute a lot more in the future. Majromax 06:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Was this the only dispute about neutrality? If so, perhaps we can remove the warning from the top of the page. David 10:41, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Added indipendents to pre-intro paragraph

Seeing as how much of the perceived suspense leading up to this vote, IMO, rested with the tenuous status of indipendent MP's (especially Chuck Cadman, with his cancer, former conservative status, and polling of constituents in "volatile" Surrey), I thought it fitting to add their significant roles to the pre-intro paragraph. I mean, jeez, Old man Caddy's on the front page of most major newspapers in Canada right now. -- Clapaucius 20:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Climax after the budget vote?

I'm not sure if it would violate the NPOV if a sentence was added at the end saying :

This is the first time in Canadian history that the Speaker of the House has broken a tie on a matter of confidence, arguably reaching the climax of the parliamentary drama preceeding this date.

and just for convenience: May 24 The By-Election for Labrador is held, resulting in a liberal victory, making the upcoming confidence motions to be put forward by the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecios innefective, securing the Liberal leadership until parliament is dissolved 30 days after the publication of the gomery inquiry.

I'll hold off that second part until next tuesday though.--68.73.206.196 23:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this last edit was slightly POV? "In an extremely rare event, the sitting of Parliament is extended in order to pass the NDP budget bill, Bill C-48, and the same-sex marriage bill, Bill C-38. In a shocking move that catches the opposition off-guard, the Liberals move to have a snap vote on Bill C-48, and, with numerous Conservatives absent not expecting a vote, the NDP budget bill, spending $4.6 billion in social spending, is passed by the Commons 152-147."

I wrote that, and I didn't mean for that bit to sound PoV or anything. Sorry if it was. All the words that might've been seen like that, (shocking, off guard, extremely rare), I'd seen used in other media reports. In what way did it sound biased? I'm an NDP supporter, but I don't think it was biased in my direction. I'll try to avoid being biased sounding in any direction with whatever suggestions I get.

--Volrath50 15:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought it was biased in the other direction, making it look like the Conservatives were treated unfairly; but as you said, the media uses those words too, so I guess it's fine. Arctic.gnome

Why the last deletion?

If any party, major or minor, has a significant innovation to offer that would reduce taxes, boost job opportunities among the unemployed, add to children's quality of upbringing, why should it be deleted?

GBC 04:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Because Canada has a large number of minor parties and covering their platforms in detail distracts from the content on the parties that do have some influence. The section on the polls, the introduction, the timeline, the targets, all rightly omit the smaller parties, there is no reason the issues section should be any different. The information would perhaps be better placed in the CHP article. - SimonP 06:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

2006

It's time I think to move this page to Canadian federal election, 2006. -- 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. -- 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) -- 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. -- 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)


Jim Harris also was ticked off that he didn't get to participate in the debates, and made the news. His party is picking up ground, and he's gaining. He was expected to get some great results this time around. He's also included in the game "Prime Minister Forever". So... WestJet

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

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)

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 23:23, 4 January 2006 (MST), very likely close to final since it has now been 57 hours since nominations closed in the Pacific time zone, and returning officers are supposed to confirm nomination papers within 48 hours of being submitted.

308 Conservative (100% of ridings now covered)
308 New Democratic Party (100%)
308 Liberal (100%)
308 Green Party (100%)
85 Independent (24.0%, or 74 of 308, ridings have at least one independent)
75 Bloc Québécois (100% of Quebec)
69 Marxist-Leninist* (22.4%)
45 Christian Heritage Party (14.61%)
34 Canadian Action (11.04%)
25 Progressive Canadian (8.12%)
23 Marijuana (7.47%)
21 Communist (6.82%)
10 Libertarian (3.25%)
5 First Peoples National (1.62%)
5 No Affiliation (1.62% of ridings have at least one non-affiliated candidate)
4 Western Block (4.35%, or 4 of 92 ridings in four provinces)
1 Animal Alliance (0.325%)

At the moment, Outremont has eleven candidates (including four independents), more than any other riding. Laurier--Sainte-Marie has nine, and others have eight or less. GBC 06:23, 5 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 candidates in Ahuntsic and in Jeanne-le-ber appear to have withdrawn on January 2. GBC 06:23, 5 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 are 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Canadian_federal_election/Archive_1&oldid=1214623317"