Talk:2006 Canadian federal election/Archive 2

message: I visit this particular page on a daily basis (sometimes 2x/day) and while I'm not 100% sure, I could swear that the poll results in the opinion poll section have been changed from what they were before...am I just losing it or is there something wrong? vikramsidhu - talk 01:02, 6 January 2006(UTC)
*new polls are added a couple of times per day. SFrank85 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion Polls: Numbers changed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dates to be used for opinion polls 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stategic Counsel Polls 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Martin still Prime Minister in the interim? 

message: What is the difference between them? CrazyC83 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Independent vs. No Affiliation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Number of candidates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parties 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Canadian Senate Reform"? There's no such thing. ;-) Ground Zero | t 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is. :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate Reform 

message: From this week's The Hill Times:
Image:Hilltimes-dec19.PNG
- Jord 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those fools! There are gross errors in those numbers, which should be fixed. I've been meaning to do so, but it takes a lot of work. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, upon fixing up the Liberal data, I've realized that the errors are not "gross" just slight. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our hard work recongized 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Helping out with election information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leader picture sizes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question about ridings 

message: Is this true? Our table shows 307/308 for the Liberals and 305/308 for the Greens, and today was the deadline. - Cuivienen 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be, we won't know for sure until the complete list is released on January 4th, there is a little bit of a lag time between when nomination papers are filed and when they are accepted. --Cloveious 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There was some talk that the Liberals were going to come up short as many as three nominees in Quebec. We will see when Elections Canada puts out the full, final list on Jan. 5. - Jord 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Liberals got their full slate and the greens are only missing one. --Cloveious 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd. You'd think they'd try to get a candidate in a riding where they won over 1,000 votes in 2004. Maybe the processing is just incomplete. - Cuivienen 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals and Greens fail to nominate full slates... ? 

message: Apparently, the 2006 election will bring back the TV blackout that was removed from the 2004 election. This means that poll results will not be shown on TV until polls close in a particular region. This means a region will have their news channels blacked out (CBC Newsworld, CTV Newsnet, etc.) until their poll is closed. However, this blackout seems impractical to keep results from coming in to any regions starting when the Altlantic polls close, and I am sure that websites like Wikipedia, and blogs and all sorts of other media will allow people to see the results when they start happening. Any word on what the law might do in the case of spoilers? --PsychoJason 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed further up on this page (link).  Because the Wikipedia servers are not in Canada, we are legally immune to post the results here, however the consensus seems to be that ethically we should withhold posting results until after the polls have closed coast-to-coast and comply with the spirit of the law of the land. - Jord 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there was no consensus.  The vast majority of polls close at the same time, with only the Maritime provinces closing early (where only a few seats change hands); only BC polls close later, 30 minutes later to be exact - which is not enough time for voters to check wikipedia, change their minds, and rush to their polling station.  In other words, there is no valid reason to withold results, especially considering that they will be available on numerous other websites. Anarchist42 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CBC, along with several other broadcasters, have appealed to the Supreme Court to repeal this restriction. JTBurman 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, however the Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear the case until after the election, so that is moot for now. - Jord 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, irrelevant.  We don't follow Chinese laws and censor free speech articles do we? Anarchist42 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I misread it, I was in favour of posting the results but thought the consensus was against me ;)  In any event, it is not a matter of 30 minutes before hand, according to our own article and the Elections Canada site the polls close in BC three hours later than in Newfoundland. - Jord 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a matter of 30 minutes, as I said, between B.C. and most of Canada. Anarchist42 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I misread your comments, I thought you were suggesting that all of the polls closed only 30 minutes before BC, but you are right it is only the 32 Atlantic seats.  Though your suggestion that "only a few seats change hands" there is a bit of a misnomer.  Traditionally, it is a pretty volative region in terms of seat changes: 1984 - 13/32 seats; 1988 - 14/32 seats; 1993 - 11/32 seats; 1997 - 20/32 seats; 2000 - 8/32 seats.  2004 was a rare exception when only 3 seats changed hands - Jord 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, this is all going to be moot to me, as I'm going to be working at the polls all day on the 23rd.  Any other Canadian Wikipedians working at the polls?  Denelson83  17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV blackout 

message: Can someone take some photos of election signs and other election related pictures? That would be great. Unfortunately, my digital camera has connection problems with my computer. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can get you some pictures from around Calgary, tommrow and Edmonton if you wait a week. --Cloveious 04:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a few pictures of various signs around my ridings, since I am helping out with the campaign. However, I only have one parties signs (liberals) but the Tories, Greens, and NDP are easy to get.--Omnieiunium 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* .... :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos! 

message: Activity has really dropped off this page since Dec 15.  --  user:zanimum
:This is because it got moved off of the main page and has largely been forgotten.  I would suggest the pre-campaign stuff be kept there (and the article renamed to reflect that) and the timeline from Nov. 28 on ward be developed and included on the main page. - Jord 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006]] 

message: SYSS Mouse has added some links for humour, but it doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic.  I reverted some outright vandalism from another contributor, but didn't go so far as to remove the humour link, pending anyone who wanted to object (I'm new here...treading lightly).  --Otter Escaping North 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour Links? 

message: Should we create a new section or page on newspaper endorsements? I thought about it when looking at past elections elsewhere and saw this page: Newspaper endorsements in the U.S. presidential election, 2004 CrazyC83 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspaper endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006 - the list should only include daily newspapers, however, it can include smaller-city dailies. CrazyC83 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper endorsements 

message: It looks to me like the endorsements section is rapidly getting out of hand, especially when it comes to Rob Davis, a one-time Toronto city councillor endorsing one Tory candidate, or various ethnic community groups endorsing the Bloc. This chart can quickly grow bigger than the article. If it must stay, at least it should be branched off into its own article. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the possibly cumbersome endorsement list in the main article, and the recently created unique article for newspaper endorsements, I wonder: should we open up a single, generic 'endorsements' article that includes all of them?  If so, I propose moving or entitling such an article Endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006, including/categorising endorsements by organisations, newspapers, et al, but/or by party.  This will also enable us to prune the main election article and try to keep it concise yet consolidated ... ha!  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * Great!  I'm formatting now.  I was actually wondering if the newspaper article should've been moved/renamed and reformatted to include all such endorsements; having two articles seems redundant, but this isn't a clincher or big issue for me. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have done that. I've posted a note on User talk:CrazyC83 to ask the creator of the newspaper endorsements article if s/he minds merging the two. Ground Zero | t 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As well, though I'm tweaking the main article, the formatting could stand for some improvement. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsements

message: I've nominated that ridiculous disclaimer template for deletion as a blatant violation of WP:NLT. Precedent makes it clear that US courts will not enforce foreign judgments that violate core First Amendment principles in the US. See  for specific details (this one involving British and Indian libel cases). <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, your nomination and interjection obviates concerns and discussions of propriety already discussed by a number of Wikipedians here.  Second, your "ridiculous" assertion demonstrates your point of view and disdain and is not necessarily authoritative: the notice merely cautions Canadians who may post results in contravention of electoral law from doing so by citing the relevant section of the Canada Elections Act, which has been prosecuted in the past.  Lastly, the template (as you can see above) is still subject to editing and hasn't been finalised yet. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an offensive, aggressive, mean-spirited bit of propaganda. If you want to "notify" people of Canadian laws, set up your own web page and do it there. It has nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Offensive and agressive to you maybe, these are subjective emotions, but how can it be mean-spirited or propaganda? Please see WP:V for how this template fits with the "mission of Wikipedia". Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stated reason for it is to modify the behavior of Canadians who read it. In other words, to intimidate and propagandize. The purpose of an encyclopedia is education, not intimidation. Mirror Vax 11:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason for this notice is largely to caution Canadians who may unknowingly violate the laws, and be prosecuted, which has happened before.  Unlike propaganda, it does not seek to influence oppinions of people, merely to warn them of potential conseqiences of their actions.  In either case, it will be there for only a few hours, and will be gone as soon as the last polls close.    Ikh (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the people who would end up posting results are Canadian.  While Canada has not sought extradition in the past for people convicted of violating elections laws, they have charged Canadians for posting the information on the internet.  However if they chose to the nature of the US Canada extradition treaty and the speed with which it works would ensure a speedy extradition.  That being said they have never gone that rout, but nothing would stop them from doing so in the future.--24.222.65.32 00:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Polls in Quebed and Ontario close a half-hour before B.C.'s close, so really for the sake of a half hour. 
SFrank85 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ontario Quebec can't have much if any impact on BC.  It's unusual to get any numbers coming in until 20 minutes or so after the polls closes for any ridings ... so we are talking about 5-10 minutes here.  It's only the Eastern Canadian where the polls close that much earlier.  3 hours before BC in Newfoundland and Labrador; and 2.5 hours for the 3 Maritime provinces.  Not that makes much difference ... it's not like before, when the CBC and CTV had already called for a majority government based on Ontario/Quebec votes, yet the polls were still open in BC (which used to be 3 hours later than Ontario/Quebec, rather than just 30 minutes). Nfitz 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning template

message: I think that, from the time polls close in Newfoundland and Labrador (0000 UTC/8:30 pm NST) until the time polls close in British Columbia (0300 UTC/7:00 pm PST), the page should be locked and no edits should be permitted. That way, we don't have to worry about breaking S.329. CrazyC83 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My recommendation

message: I thought this was not going to go up until the polls had closed in Newfounland, at 7 PM Eastern (8 pm Atlantic). Nfitz 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is problematic.  It still enables Wikipedians to edit as they normally would (have you been editing differently?), yet serve as a perfunctory reminder to those who may not (given edits/reverts as of late).  Remember, it is ad hoc.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is highly problematic it.  We all (or at least most of us, including the person who stuck it up last night) said that the template wouldn't appear until when the polls close. Now it appears when the polls open? We can't have a big huge discussion about this, and then do something else! Nfitz 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree (and perhaps this should've been discussed more); I merely point out that the template does not prohibit usual editing of the article and will only be in place for a short period of time anyway.  Moreover, the election is no longer a future/upcoming election (as the "future template" indicates): it's now underway!  I do not support revert wars, but this is not what I envisioned. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's my fault. I didn't think the timing of placing the template was the point at issue, more the question of whether there should be any mention at all of section 329, and if so what the wording should be. Hence when I got a message asking for an opinion about when the template should be removed, I checked the wording of  and felt that  fitted better for polling day. I apologize to those who feel I jumped the gun against consensus, that wasn't my intention. However I do feel that there is consensus both here and on TfD that the template should be used at least between 00:00 and 03:00 UTC: the three-revert rule applies, as one editor has already found out. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is warning posted already? 

message: I reverted the following legal warning, made in bold italics, at the very top of the article after the info boxes: 
:Note: It is a crime under Article 329 of the Elections Act to report any results to a location where the polls have not closed. Results may only be legally reported after 11:30 pm Newfoundland Time, 11:00 pm Atlantic Time, 10:00 pm Eastern Time, 9:00 pm Central Time, 8:00 pm Mountain Time, 7:00 pm Pacific Time.
I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the very top of the article. If there is a section on media reporting of election results, that's fine. Otherwise, this sort of information isn't useful to the article. --Deathphoenix 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's inappropriate atop the article – remember that the template will be placed atop the article this evening before 7 EST.  However, the information might be useful in some way: perhaps it's appropriate to include it later in this article (with polling times?) and or even on the talk page for the impending template (not in the template itself)?  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone else already placed a similiar warning at the end of the Election day section ... which seemed more appropriate there, and more NPOV.  Don't see that anything else is needed until the other template gets restored between 6 and 7 pm. Nfitz 21:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the warning is appropriate in the Election day section. --Deathphoenix 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, the reason that WP:NLT exists isn't to restrict statements of law. It's to prevent people from making legal threats which would allow them to influence the content of the encyclopedia. The kind of warning that appears above is not a legal threat. First of all, a legal threat would need to come from the appropriate Canadian agency which is empowered to take legal action on this matter. Secondly, it is not a threat at all, any more than: 'Making statements which deny the holocaust are illegal in many jurisdictions' is. The threat would be 'Persons making statements which deny the holocaust will be actively investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Finally, it is not only against the law for Canadian wikipedians, but rather it is a criminal offence under Canadian law. There is no guarantee that Canada would not pursue legal remedy even in other countries. -- AC
Someone screwed up. Its currently 6:42 PST, the polls haven't closed yet (they close at 7:00pm) and results are currently  shown in the article. 24.84.4.229 02:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted legal warning 

message: As discussed above, I have restored the template I removed this morning.  Nfitz 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  The template has also been added to the polling and (nascent) results articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there somewhere outside of Wikipedia (forum, website, etc.) where I can see some early returns?  I'm under the impression that CDNs can't post results, but they can sure as hell read up on them if they're posted. Thanks. --Madchester 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're pretty demanding on the election workers from Newfoundland - they've only been closed for 9 minutes! On an aside, the strength of the Conservatives will be easily gauged by whether they win Avalon (or Bonavista). - 69.86.17.202 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning template placed, 6:30 Eastern 

message: as I read this someone as edited the results to say 120 grits elected, 15 greens, etc. 
As if.
Mre5765 02:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  major vandalism