Talk:2005 British Columbia general election/Archive 1

message: Though the term "Greens" is often used in Australia, I've never heard a commentator in Canada refer to someone as "Greens Leader" or the like, "Green Party" seems to be the term of choice in Canada not "Greens".  You might see members of the Green Party called "the Greens" and maybe the leader called "leader of the Greens" but I don't think the style "Greens Leader" or "Greens candidate" would be used, either "Green Party" or the singular "Green" seems a better fit.  Thoughts? - Jord 03:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That said, Greens : Green Party :: New Democrats : NDP :: BC Liberals : LPBC -The Tom 07:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greens" 

message: I'd liked to archive some of the stuff on here due to the size of the talk page and the fact that there will likely be plenty of more talk as we approach the election.  Any objections? - Jord 18:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Anyone know what the deal is with Joe Pal from Surrey Whalley? he is not listed as anything in the official elections BC lists, not even Independent. Travis May 3rd. 2005
*I'd put in "No affiliation". That designation appears on other Canadian election charts, usually separate from "Independent", although there really isn't any distinction between the two terms, IMHO. Ground Zero 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Pal 

message: I'd like to combine these into two rows, they are two designations for a candidate with the same status.  I'll do this unless there is objection.  Please advise. - Jord 23:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indpendents / Non affiliated candidates 

message: I am hesitant to move DRBC to the third column instead of the Green Party.  Though DRBC now has one member in the legislature to Green's zero, this would not be the first time a party has been formed (in part) by a disgruntled independent and gone on to fair poorly at the polls and win no seats.  The Greens consistantly lead DRBC in the polls and are beating DRBC in nominations.  I do not believe we can displace the Greens as the third party at this time without being POV. - Jord 22:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my opinion as well, I did not move them ;) - Jord 17:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I am going to move Green Party back to 3rd position, because they have a full slate of candidates, whereas the Democratic Reform Party does not. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, 135.214.66.241 06:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is #3 DRBC or Green 

message: The following news release can be (as of January 19, 2005) found on the [www.reformbc.net Reform BC front page]:
MEDIA ADVISORY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Vancouver, BC, January 17, 2005
BC HAS A NEW POLITICAL PARTY
Tom Morino, Leader Democratic Reform BC; and Simon Moses, Leader All Nations Party of BC yesterday announced at a founding convention in White Rock that they have reached an agreement to unite the two parties under the name Democratic Reform British Columbia.
Shirley Abraham, President Reform BC; stepped down as party president, along with other board members, to join Democratic Reform British Columbia and Ron Gamble was elected president to replace her. Gerry Rehwald and Walter Hayden will remain on the Reform BC board. Gamble stated that Reform BC remains as a registered political party.
- 30 –
For further information please call:
Reform BC President: Ron Gamble (604) 980-7779
:I e-mailed Mr. Gamble as I was unclear as to what was going on exactly...  here is the email back and forth:
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:48:28 -0800   
From: Ron Gamble <rongamble@shaw.ca>         
To: Jordan O Brien <jord@jord.ca>
Subject: RE: From www.reformbc.net  All headers  
   
Mr. O Brian, 
Four members of our board who were working to have the Democratic Party and 
All Nations Party come over to Reform BC did not materialize.  Instead the 
Democratic Party, through Elections BC changed their name to Democratic 
Reform BC.  The result of that had a profound effect in that Reform BC would 
not have been able to change its name to Democratic Reform BC as there was 
one already registered. 
Although section 5.1 and 5.2, Article 2 and 3 are unalterable, the party 
name was not and could have been changed but no resolution was brought 
forward to our Annual General Meeting to do so. 
Our bylaws do not permit membership in two provincial parties.  As a result 
the four board members, who supported and joined the new party, could no 
longer belong to Reform BC.  As to the rest of the Members of Reform BC it 
will be up to them to decide what party they want to join or support. 
Reform BC at this moment is not ready, nor may be ready, to run candidates 
in this coming provincial election. 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Jordan O Brien  
Sent: January 19, 2005 10:24 AM 
To: rongamble@shaw.ca 
Subject: From www.reformbc.net 
Mr. Gamble: 
I have a question about the current status of Reform BC. 
>From what I have pieced together of have assumed the following: 
At Reform's Jan. 15, 2005 AGM a vote was held to disband the party and join 
the new DRBC but this vote did not pass.  As a result most of the executive 
left the party to join DRBC.  Please let me know if that is correct. 
What is very unclear, though, is do you and the new leadership of Reform BC 
intend to run candidates in the 2005 election?  I am assuming by the 
positive 
news release re: DRBC on the Reform website that though a majority of Reform 
BC members support the DRBC - including yourself and the executive they 
elected Jan. 15 - there was not the 75% support required to amend the 
constitution? 
Alternatively, I wonder if, perhaps, someone ruled that due to section 5.1 
and 5.2 of your constitution stating that Sections 2 and 3 are unalterable 
it 
was ruled that, legally, Reform BC could not disband? 
Could you please help me to shed some light on the above?  Any help would be 
appreciated! 
Thanks, 
Jordan O'Brien  
:Just FYI, I think that clarifies at least what happened w.r.t. Reform BC, they thought they were going to be taking the lead on it and when they didn't they took their toys and went home. - Jord 21:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRBC / Reform BC 

message: Why has the BC Conservative Party been moved to minor parties from the "also rans" area?  There are other parties still in existence that ran more candidates in 2001 and the Conservatives are not registering in any polls.  Please advise. - Jord 19:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'd picked a 3% cutoff between minor parties and also-rans, which demarcates a pretty substantial gap between Marijuana and, uh, the People's Front, I think, which was sub-0.5%.  I'll move them back for the time being. -The Tom 20:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Party 

message: Just for clarification's sake on the alphabet soup that ultimately composed DRBC:  The Moderate Democratic Movement was an element of the British Columbia Democratic Coalition and it thus ceased to exist upon the coalition's merger into DRBC (along with the All Nations Party and bits of Reform BC).  For tax purposes DRBC is seen by Elections BC as a successor party to just Morino's original party, BCDA.  The other parties that folded into it along the way (including MDM and ANP) continue to exist on the register for legal purposes but are effectively dead. -The Tom 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, as you are a very avid editor of this page, I assumed that you were in agreement with the timeline that I pasted from here ;)  I stand corrected. - Jord 16:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRBC/MDM 

message: Incumbents will be italicized, Leaders or Ministers will be bolded and if incumbent and running again italicized.
:Normally, Jack Cox, when you are going to change something like that you should reach concensus first on this page before making the change.  Especially, something such as the candidates tables whose format has long since been established on all Canadian elections pages.  Also, you should sign your name to your comments on this page which you can do easily by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. - Jord 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the New One Works 

message: The Thing just went cooky, needs a fix Jack Cox 01:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be a little more specific than "The Thing" and "went cooky"?  -- Jord 14:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix Up 

message: That sounds really, really, POV to me :|  Any other ideas? - Jord 14:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as certain parties within the category have occasionally gotten riled about the tag (usually with the argument, "well, we're not fringe,  but *point* those guys are"), it is the only name in general usage, with an especial preponderence of hits in Canada. Just because it can be construed by some as an epithet doesn't neccessarily make it POV -The Tom 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fringe is defined as "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views" which I don't think is a fair way to characterize the parties.  I don't disagree with the way you have reorganized the party breakdown, but I don't think the label "fringe" is appropriate for a neutral, encyclopedic work. - Jord 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed it to "Other parties contesting this election" which seems consistant with the "Other parties that may contest this election" category below it.  I hope that is ok. - Jord 16:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fringe parties" 

message: Question:
Should there be a section for "Issues" or "Campaign Issues"?  Like leadership, health care, economy, environment, etc. - Maclean25 04:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: The ridings ought to have Em dashes instead of hyphens. see: Electoral district (Canada). DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be for Canadian ridings, but for BC ridings? --  Earl Andrew - talk 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The em-dash federally has to do with the different use of the hyphen in French grammar (hyphens connect compound nouns there, so in order to keep something like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot straight the em-dash has to be brought into play).  Elections BC seems to use plain-vanilla hyphens . -The Tom 16:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiments exactly. --  Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the em dashes are a federal thing not a Canadian-wide thing.  Even New Brunswick, which is bilingual, uses regular dashes creating rather confusing ridings such as Dalhousie-Resitigouche-est - Jord 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Em dash 

message: While helping over at Alberta general election, 2004, we seemed to have an unwritten policy of not including external links to candidates within the candidates' table.  I never removed them myself but I noticed them all vanishing shortly after they appeared and I could sympathize with both sides of the argument.  No one ever complained so I assumed an unwritten consensus had developed ;)  I am wondering what our stand should be on this as a link has appeared.  -- Jord 15:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply following the Alberta precedent myself of non-wikilinking anyone who wasn't an incumbent, although a few "star candidates" were arbitarily redlinked in the hope that there may be an article on them someday.  I can't recall external links ever appearing on the federal list at all.  Like you say, there are two sides to the issue—personally, I'm not one of those people who compulsively wishes all biographical substubs to be deleted, so the abstract hope that every candidate might one day have an article make me lean towards wikilinking everyone.  If there's a link to be shared, the candidate can get a quick and dirty substub with the link on that page. -The Tom 17:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you follow what I was getting at.  I am not talking about the candidate names being wikilinked (I think they should be because I feel that wikipedia should aim to contain limitless knowledge, not just standard encyclopedic knowledge) I've conceeded with the consensus in Alberta that only incumbents and notables ought to be linked.  I was referring to whether or not external links to campaign websites should be included ... see Robert Broughton in the eastern suburbs. - Jord 18:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to candidate websites 

message: Do we want to coordinate how we do the coverage of this tonight?  On Alberta general election, 2004 EarlAndrew and I split the ridings up among ourselves so we wouldn't both be editting at the same time.  Do we want to do that tonight? - Jord 03:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage 

message: In the last parliamentary elections in BC the result was 77-2, an absurdly lopsided result.
The 2005 elections are described as "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a smaller majority."
Could this be rephrased to something like "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a lopsided 77-2 majority reduced to a comfortable 50-37 (or whatever) majority"?
Tabletop 09:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different kinds of Majority. 

message: D'oh! looks like the results are inaccurate. Still waiting for one poll in Bulkley-Stikine to come in. What, are they driving to Victoria or something? --  Earl Andrew - talk 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CBC always stops updating their results on elections night.  See Elections BC for results. - Jord 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBC Results and Elections BC results don't match. 

message: Quoth the article:
Under amendments to the B.C. Constitution Act passed in 2001, B.C. elections are now held on fixed dates: the second Tuesday in May every four years.
How does that work in a Westminster system?  Can the goverment no longer dissolve parliament and call a snap election?  What if there's a coalition (not likely in Canada I know) that collapses or a by-election causes the ruling party to lose its majority?  --Jfruh 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The legislation merely requires an election to be held on the second Monday in May four years following the previous election.  If the government were to fall, new elections would be held and the next election would be the second Monday in May four years following that election presuming that it did not fall before hand.  The amendement was relatively simple and can be found here. - Jord 02:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this work in a Westminster system? 

message: Wouldn't the map be less friendly to a person with red-green colourblindness? I ran both through Vischeck and the originals all seem far more colourblind friendly. --Ibagli (Talk) 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can tell you is I'm colorblind, and I can tell the difference between the red and the green in my map but not in the original. -- Mwalcoff 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Colourblind-friendly"? 

message: I noticed this:
:December 14, 2004 - Liberal Finance Minister Gary Collins abruptly resigns from cabinet and the legislature despite having been named co-chair of the Liberal re-election campaign a month earlier. The move requires Premier Campbell to undertake a minor cabinet shuffle.
that's not how I remember it, though his naming to the election campaign provided a convenient excuse; as I remember it this resignation happened just after - or was it just before? - news broke that he had been under surveillance by the RCMP commercial crime squad having lunch at El Lupo in relation to what has since become the Railgate scandal.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gary Collins redux

message: Earlier election pages have detailed seat-by-seat returns; here it's broken down only by region, which diminishes popular percentages of the lesser parties....I'd come here wanting to find what the percentage of teh vote won by each Tory candidate was, as presenting it as 0.55% of the provincial vote is misleading and not that informative as per their chances in individual ridings now.Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: By-seat breakdown?

message: This edit attempted to reverse a switch-change made to hide the "First Party, Second Party" titles in the infobox, the implciations of which are obviously POV; this was disucssed at Talk:British Columbia general election, 2009.  Just reporting this, partly because I sourced the IP address which made the edit and it's somebody at the Universite de Quebec a Montreal, or at least someone "riding" their servers.Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First/Second Party in infobox

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia general election, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.electionprediction.org/2005
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050529184230/http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2661 to http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2661
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525005706/http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20050510.htm to http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20050510.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513071307/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6881 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6881
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421002013/http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/index.html to http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/index.html
*Added  tag to http://142.36.252.26/bcimg/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified