Talk:2006 Canadian federal election: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:29, 22 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:41, 3 May 2025

(306 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{On this day|date1=2007-01-23|oldid1=102759508}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|

{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=mid|cangov=yes}}

}}

==Untitled==

'''See also:'''

* [[Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive1]]

* [[Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive2]]

== result contradictory. ==

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/default.html The table 8 gives ENTIRELY different results from the ones here, especially on minor parties. update accordingly to official results please. --[[User:Petrovic-Njegos|Petrovic-Njegos]] 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

==The ''most current'' composition of the House==

I understand that this article is entitled "Canadian federal election, 2006" and as such it reports those MPs and their party affiliations as they were elected on January 23rd. However, with [[David Emerson]] [[crossing the floor]] from the Tories to the Liberals, am I wrong in understanding that the Tories now have 125, not 124 seats, and the Liberals have been reduced from 103 to 102? Perhaps, due to its title, that is "Canadian federal election, 2006" this is not the right article to update this seemingly minor change. In fact though, the change is not minor, especially if you're Jack Layton. One more defection or change due to a recount could give the NDP the balance of power. In what article is the most current composition of the House of Commons?[[User:Loomis51|Loomis51]] 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I just answered my own question, in the article on the [[Canadian House of Commons]], there is a section entitled "current composition", reflecting the defection of David Emerson. I still do think that it might be misleading for someone not reading the footnotes to rely on this article as reflecting Parliament's current composition.[[User:Loomis51|Loomis51]] 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

== Leader Pictures ==

Is it just me, or did someone go out of their way to find the ugliest picture of Stephan Harper possible? I mean, compare that picture to his [http://www.conservative.ca/EN/biography/ official biography]. ~Slavik81, 21 January 2006

: When it comes to the Rt. Hon. [[Stephen Harper]], I think the most we can hope for is a ''less-ugly'' version of his mug on a photo. ;) [[User:FiveParadox|FiveParadox]] 06:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

== Endorsements Page==

Line 8 ⟶ 32:

:The Toronto Star did endorse the Liberals, however I can not find it on their website. [[User:SFrank85|SFrank85]] 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::I have the Saturday Toronto Star saying they endorsed the Liberals right here. They've had letters to the editor about it for days. ~Slavik81 21 January 2006

== Opinion Polls: Numbers changed? ==

== Gender breakdown of Candidates ==

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? [[User:vikramsidhu|vikramsidhu]] - [[User talk:Vik|talk]] 01:02, 6 January 2006(UTC)

I had noticed that the [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=med&document=jan0506b&dir=pre Elections Canada] press release that all count of candidates on, had a break down by gender. All the information in this release except the gender breakdown made it to the [[Template:Canadian federal election, 2006]]. It didn't seem very NPOV to me, to leave it off, so I added it; but someone else felt it was unnecessary and deleted. I've restored, but what is consensus? [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 19:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

*new polls are added a couple of times per day. [[User:SFrank85|SFrank85]] 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:I like it. -- [[user:zanimum]]

::I like it too. [[User:SFrank85|SFrank85]] 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I like it as well. I didn't realise the Conservatives have so few female candidates!--[[User:Colle|Colle]] 20:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Informative and relevant. --[[User:GrantNeufeld|GrantNeufeld]] 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::I concur ... but see below. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This information should not be in that table, this is a summary of results, It's not important to put Male / Female breakdown, what next ethnic breakdown reglious breakdown? Gay and straight breakdown age range where does it end? This information should be in it's own section, seats by election summarys should flow from one federal election to another, this information should be in it's own section if it is to be included. --[[User:Cloveious|Cloveious]] 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:Well, it's duly noted by Elections Canada (I wonder why?), so it at least has some merit for being there above the other items you listed. [[User:TheProject|TheProject]] 05:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::I dunno I don't run Elections Canada, I just don't feel it should be included in the summary, it should be it's own section. I don't feel we should complicate that table anymore, it was perfect the way it was.--[[User:Cloveious|Cloveious]] 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::In retrospect, this makes some sorta sense, Cloveious. Tables with an excess of information start to lose utility. Perhaps additional demographic information can appear in a related table, while the current one should be limited to summative electoral information only – as is? I also believe the current table is based on a template, but nothing needn't be written in stone. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm with Cloveious on this. I think that it should be a separate table, not in the results table. If the M/F breakdown is to be included in this table, it would make sense to report also the # of Ms and Fs who won and lost, and then it gets very confusing. The newspapers also ran the numbers of viible minority candidates for each of the major parties. That would be interesting to add to a section that discusses the # of Ms and Fs. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::This is what was reported by Elections Canada. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know how one determines a list of visibile minorities ... the candidates don't declare this, and in Canada such information is normaly self-identifying ... is it legal to do this? And what's a "visible minority"? Is hispanic a visible minority, it is in some places. What about a aboriginal Canadian in Nunavut? They are a majority there. What about someone from Greece with olive skin ... what about someone from Palestine with olive skin? Heck, in the Conservative party females are a visible minority :-) ! I'd stick to officially released information ... [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Given the length of the article, this might be more an argument to ''briefly'' summarise the gender breakdown in a few lines in-text (comparison with prior periods and other countries), while moving cumbersome (though informative tables) to appropriate sub/articles. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== Fixes required? ==

These certainly deserve a look by someone knowledgeable:

== Dates to be used for opinion polls ==

* [[Prime Minister of Canada]]

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 [[Canadian federal election, 1988|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 Party of Canada|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. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

* [[Official Opposition (Canada)]]

** [[Leader of the Opposition (Canada)]]

*** [[List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition]]

** [[Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Canada)]]

*** [[List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate]]

* [[Minority governments in Canada]]

This list is certainly not comprehensive. Check [[:Category:Government of Canada]] for more things to check.

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

-- [[User:Taral|Taral]] 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Stategic Counsel Polls ==

* People are looking at them. Nothing changes really until the changeover of power, which will likely be in early Feburary, so no rush to edit them much. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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? [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a typo in the following graphic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Canada_election_2006.jpg/250px-Canada_election_2006.jpg where Bloc is spelled Bloq in the legend.

== Is Martin still Prime Minister in the interim? ==

== Someone might like to ==

:''[[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? [[User:Erath|Erath]] 19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone might like to add a bit to [[Conservative Party of Canada]] explaining just a little of what their policies are. I would have thought this a pretty big oversight? - [[User:Randwicked|Randwicked]] <small>Alex B</small> 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

: Done; input and editing would be appreciated. Same thing should be probably done for the [[Liberal Party of Canada]], but I don't really feel like doing it now. [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 09:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Procedure for forming government ==

::Alrighty, thanks. [[User:Erath|Erath]] 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Apologies if this is already there and I am overlooking it, but could somebody who knows about this stuff add some information on the formal procedure for forming the next government? For example, the international media seem to be assuming that the Conservatives, as largest single party, will be involved in the next government. But is there any reason why they must be included when, for example, a

:::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. [[User:Gcapp1959|GBC]] 22:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberal-BQ-NDP coalition would have a substantial overall majority? Best wishes, [[User:Cambyses|Cambyses]] 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

: added a ''very short'' comment on the matter, linking it to the [[Minority governments in Canada]] page, which explains this better. In general, the coalition governments in Canada are basically non-existent for a variety of reasons; especially unlikely is any coallition of a any party with BQ, as that is considered to be "sleeping with the devil". [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::There is more discussion on this question at [[Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Canada#Too soon to say Harper will be PM?]] and [[Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Too soon to say Harper will be PM?]] -- [[User:Adz|Adz]]|[[User talk:Adz|talk]] 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Independent vs. No Affiliation ==

== People are missing the point on posting electin result. ==

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

:People are missing the point. Why is Election Canada have such ban? It is because it does not want the posting of election result influcing on people of whom to vote in western Canada. reverting those result, IMHO, is not censorship but rather, as not to influence on people whom to vote. We don't want to indrectly endorsing someone. We will not say so, but someone willtake that as a recommendation.[[User:SYSS Mouse|SYSS Mouse]] 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

::I can see why Elections CA would do this. In the [[U.S. presidential election, 1980|1980 election]], voters in California had not finished voting when President Carter conceeded at 10 PM EST (7 PM PST) to Reagan, There are stories of voters walking out of their polling place and not voting after hearing the news of Carter's concession. There were hearings on this in the early 80's, but I don't believe anything came out of it. For more details, see Appendix I of [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.report/cnn.pdf CNN's report about the 2000 election coverage]. - Thanks, ''[[User:Hoshie|Hos]]'''''[[User_talk:Hoshie|hie]]''' | 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

==Independent==

::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. [[User:Gcapp1959|GBC]] 05:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So who was the independent elected and where from? Perhaps I missed it in the article. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have added footnotes to indicate that [[André Arthur]] was elected as an independent candidate in the Quebec City-area riding of [[Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier]]. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

: I think it might also be a good idea to move the 1 independent up on the "Results" table. IMO it is rather tedious to have to scroll down to the bottom of the table in order to see all of the elected seats; it would be more practical to see all of them in one glance.

==Number of candidates==

: What are the criteria for precedence in the "Results" Parties' listing, anyway? If number of seats is a factor, then it is appropriate for André Arthur to appear before the Greens; if number of candidates is the factor, there is something like 90 candidates that "subscribe" to the "Independent/No Affiliation" label, which could go between the Greens (308) and the Christian Heritage (45).

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. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

: In any case, I think the political context would allow for all the elected seats to be shown together, especially since the independent has a potentially large stake in this minority. [[User:Rod ESQ|Rod ESQ]] 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

==Opinion polls==

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

Now that the election is over, I suggest that the opinion polls table be deleted since it duplicates what is in the branch article. Anyone interested in opinion polling in the election would follow the link to the branch article. Agreed? [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made a change to the text describing the Greens as running 308 candidates. The previous version said the Liberals and Conservatives are running 307. This is technically incorrect. Although each of those parties has identified a candidate who will not be permitted to sit with the caucus, if elected, it is too late to withdraw them as nominees for the party. I have changed the text to try and better reflect this. --[[User:Otter Escaping North|Otter Escaping North]] 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, I suggest it remain but be pared down to include only intermittent results from previous months (as I did for 2005 entries). Nothing to lose sleep over, though. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:...Further to that, only include the most recent SES poll (since that reflects the actual situation almost to a T), and one each for 9 and 16 Jan. (implying a trend consistent with the graph). [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:Agree, delete the polls, slowly becoming irrelevant... [[User:Barry Zuckerkorn|Barry Zuckerkorn]] 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Election night publication ban ==

: Since a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe add the graph from the main polls page for the illustrative purposes (esp. to demonstrate the shift in oppinion midway throught the campaign)? [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::What I don't understand is why Elections Canada simply refrains from giving out any results until the last polls close. The poll results are supposed to be reported to the returning officer, who reports to Ottawa although there are media present at the returning office. Why not just have a reporting blackout until the last polls close? Besides, in most ridings, the result is not really authoritative until more of the polling divisions report. [[User:Gcapp1959|GBC]] 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

:::::::::Besides:

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

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

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

:::::::::::Good point, Anarchist42. I'm a BC'er too, and I always like seeing the election results start from zero. You know, I wish Elections Canada would adopt this rule regarding the counting of votes: ''"Don't start counting votes until '''all''' the polls have closed, nationwide."'' It would solve the problem of keeping election results out of open polls, although it would create the problem of having Newfoundlanders count their votes well into the next morning. That side problem could be solved by holding the actual vote on one day, then delaying the vote counting until the following morning. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;[[User:Denelson83|Denelson]][[User talk:Denelson83|'''83''']]&nbsp;</span> 09:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

::I have my own vote reform notion I've had for over a decade... if not two decades. Move election day to Wednesday, make it a national holiday (one extra holiday every 2-4 years is not much to ask of the economy) that can't produce a long weekend, and open the polls for 10 hours simultaneously across the country. You don't need 12 hours (as is now allowed) if people aren't constrained by hours at their places of employment. The polls could be open 11:30 am-9:30 pm in Newfoundland, and 7 am to 5 pm in BC/Yukon, and then the counting all begins at once. [[User:Gcapp1959|GBC]] 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

::: That's all well and good, but can anyone state how soon after polls close do the results get officially declared? [[User:Tompw|Tompw]] 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I belive it's about 2 weeks. I think you asked the wrong question though; results trickle in during the first hour for most ridings, but close races can take hours, with a few ridings not settled for days or until after a recount. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::The race is typically called within thirty minutes of the polls closing in Ontario and Quebec. At that point there is most often enough data to make a projection. However given this current election being tight we will have to wait untill BC closes. I mean the conservatives have the lead right now but who knows what is going to happen over the weekend, this election has been full of surprises. --[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::Sure! And perhaps with a ''brief'' summary/lead paragraph? Moreover (a separate issue), is there value in extending the graph back to exhibit results from and since the 2004 election? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a section about the fight to eliminate the Publication Ban. This discussion, while interesting, may thus be moot. [[User:JTBurman|JTBurman]] 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

: The Supreme Court has upheld the ban, so distributing results within Canada prior to the close of local polls will be illegal. [http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/13/election060113.html] --[[User:Llewdor|Llewdor]] 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::'''Incorrect''', it is illegal (for now, who know what future judges will say) to distribute results '''FROM''' Canada, not '''TO''' Canada - so anyone in the U.S. can safely do so. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Please cite this contention. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Cite? Canadian law does not apply to non-Canadians outside of Canada. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::::This is true, the reason why the lower courts threw the law out in the first place was because Canadians could get the results from U.S. networks and websites so why not get them from Canadian ones - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::We're treading over old ground: "[[WP:CITE|cite]]" means just that – provide a reference to support the contention, just as one should for any element of information/opining in Wp. And as the results ''pro forma'' originate ''from'' and are arguably distributed ''from'' Canada – regardless of whether they are posted by a US website (and thus impossible to distribute back ''to'' Canada without being distributed from it in the first place) – we should not do so unless it is proper to do so. Maybe someone should drop a note to Jimbo about possible im/propriety? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Any Canadian citizen or resident (regadless of where they reside) is indeed subject to Canadian election laws (Jimbo?). I can not cite that Canadian laws don't apply to non Canadians residing out side of Canada, as I believe that is commone sense, no? American news outlets often announce Canadian elections while polls are still open, and do so legally. Americans are quite free to post anything they want on servers located outside of Canada, no? [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 20:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No. The question to ask Jimbo is: can Canadian or non-Canadian citizens prematurely post results originating from Canadian electoral processes on Wikipedia (which is hosted on US servers but accessible to those within and outside Canada) without contravening domestic laws (in either jurisdiction)? For example: arguably the same could be said of copyright infringements, which are generally upheld regardless of borders. The answers may be different than expected.

:::::::Besides (see above): Wikipedia isn't a news service/outlet and common sense isn't necessarily the point. And if it is a matter of common sense, legalism notwithstanding, I'm sure one can cite something to support this position? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::E Pluribus Anthony: Here is your citation, which I am sure you could have looked up as easily as I. I don't think it is that necessary to cite things in a casual convestation on talk page and would appreciate a little less arrogance in your contribution to the discourse: "U.S. border stations can broadcast election results from eastern Canada before viewers or listeners in western Canada have finished voting." [http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/03/14/2003BCSC1499.htm] - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you; I've read it. It largely answers the question, but not fully: is Wikipedia analogous to a "broadcast station"? Does it address the question of cross-border 'contravention' online that may (given advancements in telecommunications and Wikipedia's reach) disproportionately affect an electoral outcome (which is addressed in the ruling, s. 39)? As such, the original premise may still be murky.

:::::::And of course I could've looked it up (and I'm quite adept at doing so), but the [[WP:CITE|onus is on the proponent]] to substantiate such a position. Otherwise, information stemming from it that isn't cited can be nixed. The ''[[Canada Elections Act]]'' ''in toto'' and the potential liability to the US Wikimedia Foundation is my basis for opposition. I still see no reason to tempt fate. Just some thoughts ... [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::OK, I just finished talking with the lawyers at ''Elections Canada''. [[http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=part16&dir=leg/fel/cea&lang=e&anchor=sec329&textonly=false#sec329 Section 329]] applies only to 'persons', which is not defined in the Act. Thus, we are left to assume that anyone who is not subject to Canadian law (ie. non-Canadians residing outside of Canada) are not bound by the Act (since no action can be brought against them, as the Elections Act is not subject to any Treaties, nor is extradition possible since the Elections Act is not part of the Criminal Code). [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 22:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Re the above, as long as the wikipedia servers are not located in Canada, nor owned by any Canadian citizen or resident, then wikipedia itself is free to report as it wishes (being a media outlet is not relevant). However, any results (or alterations thereof) can '''NOT''' be made by any Canadian citizen or resident! So, we are left only with moral issues (which I discussed earlier). [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Not to be argumentative, but we can't confirm nor deny any of that and it is unconvincing. To counter: the ref provided by Jord above indicates that proceedings ''were'' initiated pursuant to s. 813, RSC 1985, c. C-46 of the ''Criminal Code'' (read [1]). [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=part00&dir=leg/fel/cea&lang=e&anchor=sec2&textonly=false#sec2 Moreover, consult the definitions regarding a "broadcaster", and (I maintain, as above) that Wikipedia is not a licensed broadcaster ''per se'' and might be relevant]. In addition, a "person" is undefined in the act but it is elsewhere (e.g., the Charter, which supercedes it). Moreover, corporations are generally accorded the same rights/responsibilities as individuals in terms of litigation wherever they may be. (And of course, we're not talking about [[Newspeak|unperson(s)]] here.)

::::::::::Nice try. s. 813 of the ''Criminal Code'' is simply the appeals procedure. Also, the Charter does '''not''' define ''person'' (Indeed I find it interesting that I can't find the legal definition of ''person'' anywere!). [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::Likewise: "simply" obviates neither as relevant laws throughout this discussion. [http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c2&source=library_prb&Parl=36&Ses=2#Part%201:%20Electoral%20Rights%20(clauses%203%20%E2%80%93%2012)(txt) See here for added discussion regarding citizenry/persons et al.]; anything else is semantics (IMO). And all of this is supposition: really, if one wants to post results prematurely, one can do so on a personal webpage and take the potential responsibility ... un/personal or otherwise instead of possibly imperilling Wp.

::::::::::::I accept that the below is an acceptable and sufficient solution. The link above, however, says nothing at all about who a '''person''' is (please read your sources first). What amazes me is how much unwarranted fear some of you have about s. 329, considering that no American citizen or broadcaster has ever had any legal problems resulting from any part of the Election Act (I find such unwarranted fear to be somewhat revealing). [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Great. And I fully read this and that; hence, I wouldn't have provided it. The link provides additional context that should satisfy concerns about who is what (from an electoral perspective), just as any dictionary would. The point is: circuitous, semantic debates about definitions and interpretations of what a "person" is, though interesting (particularly if we were discussing [[abortion]]), occlude the topic at hand and are essentially pointless. Let's move on.

::::::::::::::Yup, we've beat this horse to death LOL. My question concerning what a ''person'' is was more to do with jurisdiction (ie. no Nation's law applies to foreigners residing in a foreign nation - I was just surprised that some of you required citiations for what seems to me to be common sense, that's all). [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Don't you mean ... "unperson"? :) The applicability of cross-border laws is blurring with time: I recall hearing somewhere that courts in any jurisdiction (e.g., in Canada) can hear and try cases from others for any number of reasons. And regarding common sense, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander: for example, the "[[Common Sense Revolution]]" was more a [[devolution (fallacy)|devolution]] (IMO), but I digress and these are topics for other discussions. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::As well, it isn't a matter of fear ''per se'' (read the [[litany against fear]], a personal fave): it's a matter of possible impropriety and illegality. Good things come to those who wait. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I agree that ''impropriety'' was debatable, but ''illegality'' seems to be nothing more than irrational fear. 'nuff said .[[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Great. We agree to disagree on the second point ... possibly. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::See below for suggested course of action, in which case we can have our cake and eat it too. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 12:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::I maintain that there's no reason for us/Wp to possibly contravene Canadian law when alternatives exist (particularly in the few hours before results actually are legally available): we can still provide links to media sources that choose to flaut the law (wherever they are), and then update Wp when there's no ambiguity – legally or morally – about doing so.

:::::::::Of course, all of the above is supposition and I haven't taken any medication today. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::: I'd supported, provided that it's ''brief'' - under 10 lines or so. The article is already a touch too long. [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Parties ==

::::Done! I've adapted text from the polling article for use here. Have at it. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --[[User:ShaunMacPherson|ShaunMacPherson]] 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Looks good! -- [[User:Barry Zuckerkorn|Barry Zuckerkorn]] 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::TY! [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Senate Reform ==

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

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

::[[Ground zero|Sure there is]]. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== Seat breakdown image ==

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

That should be taken down or changed, there is no certainty that a Conservative will be speaker and, in fact, it would be quite likely for the Conservatives to encourage Peter Milliken to reseek the job to widen their standings - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Our hard work recongized ==

:Based on historical precedent, the seat chart is a reasonable prediction, thus I suggest that a footnote stating that the upcoming parliment seating is not yet finalized whould be sufficient. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::This war far too obvious and prominent upfront; I moved it down and resized it. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From this week's ''[[The Hill Times]]'':

::Actually, the next person to sit in the speaker's chair will be [[Bill Blaikie]] who, as [[dean of the House]], will serve as presiding officer until the election of a speaker. Therefore the image should either have no one in the speaker's position (my preference) or a New Democrat (signifying Blaikie). - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Hilltimes-dec19.PNG]]

:Jord's prediction of Peter Milliken returning to the Speaker's chair is also a reasonable prediction. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we should not be making predictions. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 20:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

- [[User:Jord|Jord]] 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::Is Jord a newsworthy person. If so I think he should be mentioned if newswothiness is met. [[User:John wesley|John wesley]] 20:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

: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. --[[Image:Ndpsmall.jpg|20px|NDP logo]] [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 08:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, upon fixing up the Liberal data, I've realized that the errors are not "gross" just slight. --[[Image:Ndpsmall.jpg|20px|NDP logo]] [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 03:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::GZ, I by no means suggested that we should say that Milliken would be speaker, my point here was that by saying it would be a Conservative we were prejudging things. As you say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Moreover, until the House elects a speaker (i.e. right now), the presiding officer is '''not''' a Conservative. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Helping out with election information ==

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

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

:::I believe that the seat chart is a reasonable expectation of what the new parliment will end up looking like, although I suggest that a note to that effect be added. The chart ''is'' usefull for providing an indication of the potential instability inherent in any slim minority parliament. In any case, right now there is no parliament anyways and the first action of the new parliament will be to elect a new speaker. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Leader picture sizes ==

::::I agree that this is a useful image, I am just saying that to not be crystal balling, we should not display a speaker. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --[[User:Llewdor|Llewdor]] 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::It would not be unpreciedented for Peter Milliken to return as speaker, and I think that based on the current standings the conservatives would be voting for him. Remember that many of the Mps from verious parties are personal friends, and the election for speaker is secret ballot. The Conservative party is not in a position to manipulate who will become the speaker. It is very likely that they would vote for Milliken mainly because he has been a rather good speaker in terms that he broke ties in favour of both the government and the opposition based on president. He is also highly neutral. Chuck Strawl was deputy speaker I believe, but he has lung cancer and will probably be out of the house too much to take on the job.--[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

:::::Is there a precedent? Who would be the speaker? There's no reason to include/cite the current contributor when another more authoritative/citable reference may exist. In doubt, keep it grey for now. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

::::::There is no real precedent as the rules surrounding the election of speaker were radically altered in 1984 - allowing election by secret ballot among other things. As it is secret ballot there is no means by which to whip members, runoff ballots are used so, if a party holds a majority, it is almost certain that someone from their party will win but we have never had a contested election for speaker in a minority parliament nor have we had a situation where the government, with a minority, had the option of supporting the re-election of a popular and well liked speaker. I think my change to the image, leaving no one in the speaker's chair, makes the most sense until a speaker is elected. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --[[User:Llewdor|Llewdor]] 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::The only reason I suggest that A it could be Milliken and B that I agree with it being blank was that the speaker durring Clarkes government was the Liberal incumbant speaker.--[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the image leaving the speaker's chair vacant and placing the independent in the back row which is where he would be seated - though he might be placed in between the two caucuses not in the back corner. I hope this is agreeable to all - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Question about ridings ==

I just redid:Unfortunately, the [[Avalonseat (electoralchart district)]]now articlehas andno wasspeaker wonderingat whatall the- ±%would isnot baseda on.white Issquare, itperhaps basedwith ona previousquestion electionsmark, informationbe or whatbetter? --[[User:OmnieiuniumAnarchist42|OmnieiuniumAnarchist42]] 21:4113, 124 January 2006 (UTC)

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

::Hence a grey stroked (outline) or filled box should be in place until the Speaker is selected or more certain. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Liberals and Greens fail to nominate full slates... ? ==

Is::I thisdon't true?think Ourso table- showsit 307/308could forleave the Liberalsimpression andof 305/308309 seats. Moreover, for the Greensfirst sitting of the House, andthe todayHouse wasof Commons will publish an official seating arrangement with no one assigned to sit in the deadlinespeaker's chair. - [[User:CuivienenJord|CuivienenJord]] 0121:3724, 324 January 2006 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:Cloveious|Cloveious]] 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

: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. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

::Looks like Liberals got their full slate and the greens are only missing one. --[[User:Cloveious|Cloveious]] 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::And a filled one doesn't? Prior images include a filled square, so should it be assumed that those parliaments had ... one greater seat? To me, a greyed-out square/outline indicates ambiguity ... precisely the state until a Speaker is selected. If there are objections ...[[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Greens are missing a candidate in

*Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam

::::I am not entirely sure what your meaning is? Right now, the members will all be assigned seats in their caucuses and there will be no one assigned to the speaker's chair. When a speaker is elected, s/he will be assigned to the speaker's chair and there will be one less member on the benches yeilding the same total. If we have 308 members on the benches plus a grey/shaded seat in the speaker it could be interpreted as a 309th member who is an independent. I don't see what the problem is with leaving the image as it now is - which is a reflection of what the assigned seating arrangement will be when the House first meets - and then changing it to reflect the speakership when a speaker is elected. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:::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. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I could bounce that back. There's a problem in not rendering a position in this parliamentary diagram that is integral to the functioning of Parliament, regardless of when it is filled or who fills it. By leaving it out, the implication is that it doesn't at all exist – not that the posting is indeterminate – despite our knowledge to the contrary and the practice of including it in prior images. In any event, I think the current version (with grey outline) is adequate until the speaker is selected.

The Greens did get a full slate. The candidate in Port Moody... [http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/candidates.aspx?L=e&ED=59021&EV=25&EV_TYPE=1&Prov=BC&ProvID=59&QID=8&PageID=4] is Scott Froom[http://ridings.greenparty.ca/article290.html]. --[[User:GrantNeufeld|GrantNeufeld]] 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Besides, wouldn't [[Peter Milliken]] continue to serve as speaker until a new one is selected? (In this case, shouldn't it be coloured red?) [http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/SP-BL/hoc-cdc/sp_tbl-e.asp He's still listed as the current speaker.] Above notations aside regarding the Dean, the listing (also in Wp) doesn't indicate intermediaries (e.g., Blaikie/other Deans) and appears continuous. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

== TV blackout ==

As well, this might merely be a matter of formatting, but there's no reason to have so much white space uptop with line breaks. This, added to the scrolling any visitor would have to endure (given the TOC below), may make for an article requiring some parring down or reformatting. Thoughts? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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? --[[User:PsychoJason|PsychoJason]] 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== Vulnerable ridings section ==

:This was discussed further up on this page ([[Talk:Canadian_federal_election%2C_2006#Election_night_publication_ban|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. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we should remove this section, which has caused some confusion in the past, now that the election is over and replace it with those close calls from this election, ministers who lost their seats, etc? - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:Nah, but we might want to edit it to reflect what ridings were picked up -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Election Map ==

:::The CBC, along with several other broadcasters, have appealed to the Supreme Court to repeal this restriction. [[User:JTBurman|JTBurman]] 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sence to have the Liberals on the map be shades of red, to match party color and the CBC's choice of color, instead of brown?

::::Yes, however the Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear the case until after the election, so that is moot for now. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-SAS- 24 Jan 2006 17:31 Eastern, PA, USA

:::::Also, irrelevant. We don't follow Chinese laws and censor free speech articles do we? [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:::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 [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=ec90815&dir=bkg&lang=e&textonly=false Elections Canada site] the polls close in BC three hours later than in Newfoundland. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::::It '''is''' a matter of 30 minutes, as I said, between B.C. and most of Canada. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::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 - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::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? <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> [[User:Denelson83|Denelson]][[User talk:Denelson83|'''83''']] </span> 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

=== Data Sources ===

Canadian Wikipedians could be prosecuted even if they posted on servers outside of the country. They are physically in Canada, and physically imputing the data from Canada. No reprocussions against wikipedia.--[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

data (Excel file) on each riding can be found at http://www.faganfinder.com/wp/2006/01/25/765/ . includes the provice/territory, population, area, number of votes counted, number of votes for all registered parties (other than animal alliance), etc.

== The map is beautiful, but... ==

Does anyone know where online results will be posted? Atlantic Canada is a very important part of the election as it usually goes the way of the majority of Canada. I have a friend in Nova Scotia who will have a webcam on his TV, but there must be something online.

The results map is a beautiful piece of work. It is a pleasure to look at and reflects a good deal of hard work.

And that is why they do not want the results from atlantic canada to get out. The polls in Atlantic Canada are closed for 2 hours before the rest of Canada, and even longer in newfoundland. All races except the close ones are called by the time the polls in Ontario close. But because Atlantic Canada elects its Mps in a pretty decisive manour, usually by a majority, with a few exceptions the races can most often be called even sooner. --[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

===How many seats close at what times===

However, I think it can be improved on as an information graphic. Right now, it has too many colors. It is difficult to tell, for example, the difference between slim Conservative wins and slim Bloc wins.

Number of seats closing at given times (all times [[UTC]])

I know we would like to express as much information as we can on the map and use the parties' traditional colors. However, the primary concern must be making the map easy-to-read.

{| class="wikitable"

I suggest using only four colors: blue for the Conservatives, red for the Liberals, yellow (or dark green) for the NDP and white for the Bloc. Orange and red are too close for colorblind people.

|-

|0:00

|5

|-

|0:30

|27

|-

|2:30

|239

|-

|3:00

|37

|-

!Total

!308

[[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

|}

There's more than one shade of white? ;) But other wise yes. Just make it clear that the NDP is Yellow or Green. 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Photos! ==

:Thanks for your suggestions on colorblind-friendly colors. I'd prefer keeping the current map to provide the maximum information, though would be willing to provide an alternative version with four colors you suggest. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --[[Image:Ndpsmall.jpg|20px|NDP logo]] [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I can get you some pictures from around Calgary, tommrow and Edmonton if you wait a week. --[[User:Cloveious|Cloveious]] 04:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Omnieiunium|Omnieiunium]] 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::*cough* .... :) --[[Image:Ndpsmall.jpg|20px|NDP logo]] [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 15:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could get a pic of the partisan politics here in the 905 belt. I am in the Halton riding, and I have seen a sizable amount of vandalised signs around. The one that stuck in my mind was a Liberal sign (the incumbent) that had a spraypainted "X" through the name and the word "LIES" as well. - [[User:Lucky13pjn|Lucky13pjn]] 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::That's what we did on [[British Columbia general election, 2005]]. I couldn't read the eight-color map, so I got the OK from the creator to make it a four-color map on my computer. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== [[Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006]] ==

:Iqaluit is missing! --[[User:Colle|Colle]] 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Activity has really dropped off this page since Dec 15. -- [[user:zanimum]]

::I've increased the color contrast and added Iqaluit. I could still make the NDP even more yellow, though not sure white works that well for the Bloc. Would a shade, more green, be okay? or would that not work along with the yellow? Are there any other colors that would work okay instead of white? if not, I can try to make white work. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

: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. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I like what you did with the NTP. It makes a good contrast. Unfortunately, there are only three primary colors, and there are four parties. Green would be OK from a colorblindness perspective as long as it is a dark green, since light red and light green are indistinguishable to many colorblind people. Of course, in your map, you use gradients to express vote percentages. That works OK with the primary colors, but I'm afraid it may be problematic with both red and green. You can give it a shot, though. It will certainly work better than two shades of blue.

== What Happens in a tie ==

:::Ask any newspaper graphic-design person: They're always having their beaufiful work destroyed by editors who make changes in the name of usability!

What party would take power in the case that two parties receive the same number of votes? It notes on the opinion poll page that the Liberals would become oppostion if they tied the Bloq because of the last election, does this apply in the case that the Liberals/Conservatives tie for 1st? Thanks [[User:Priester|Priester]] 17:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Another good idea for a map would be one that colors only the seats that changed hands, leaving all other ridings white. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:The results of the election do not necessarily determine the winner of the election. A government only leaves office if it resigns or if it is dismissed by the [[Governor General of Canada]]. Following the [[Canadian federal election, 1925|1925 election]] the Conservatives actually won more seats than the Liberals but the Liberals continued in office as a [[minority government]]. If the incumbent prime minister (Martin) feels he can command the confidence of the House, it is his right to face the House. Should he be defeated in the House, he would be expected to resign and the Governor General would appoint the next most likely person to command confidence or call an election. So, the answer to your question is, if they tie (or finish close to each other with neither getting a majority) Paul Martin would have the right to try to govern first, but would not necessarily take that chance. The is actually a case of a tie, in the [[List of Nova Scotia general elections|1998 Nova Scotia election]] the Liberals and the NDP tied with 19 seats each with the Tories took 14. The Liberals continued in office.

:In terms of the opposition, that is a more complicated question. The is no rule or precedent for a tie in that regard following the election. The is precedent in the mid-1990s when the Bloc had won the most seats but Reform eventually caught up to them due to by-elections and/or floor crossings. The speaker ruled that the Bloc had it first so they could keep it. In terms of a tie following an election, the speaker would have to rule but it is most likely that the Liberals, as the outgoing government, would be given the title. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I'll see what I can do tomorrow, both in regards to the colors and your latest suggestion. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 03:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::See also [[Ontario general election, 1985]]. The governing PCs won 52 seats, the Liberals won 48 seats, and the NDP won 25 or 30, IIRC. The Liberals made a deal with the NDP, and defeated the PCs in a vote of non-confidence as soon as the Legislature returned. The Lieutenant-Governor then asked the Liberal leader to form a government, which he did. He did not form a coalition with the NDP, but a minority government that depended on NDP suport to pass legislation. In the case, the governing party had fewer seats than the official opposition. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Very nice! If theI NDPhad andmy Liberalsway, combinedI hadwould amake majoirty"New ofDemocrats" seats,singular isin itthe likelylegend, weand ouldput the haveBloc coalitionin government?last place--[[User:TompwColle|TompwColle]] 1204:3018, 1525 January 2006 (UTC)

::::It's possible, although unlikely. The only coalitiona government that Canada has had at the federal level during World War II when the Conservatives formed a coalition with many Liberals as the [[Unionist Party (Canada)|Unionist Party]]. It was not properly a coalition because other parts of the Liberal Party continued (see [[Laurier Liberals]]) as the official opposition. The model in Canada has been typically that the supporting party continues to sit in opposition and does not take cabinet seats, but supports the government through a formal or informal agreement. And besides, it is very unlikely that the Liberals and NDP will have a combined majority after this election. :-( [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 15:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:I agree ... bravo! I agree with the "New Democrat" sentiment above; ditto for the Bloc. Moreover, the GTA inset on the Ontario map (properly '[[Central Canada]]'?) seems compressed vertically. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: It is hard to say but I expect unlikely. There has never been a bonafide coalition government federally in Canada and only a handful provincially (the NDP/Liberal coalition in Saskatchewan in 1999, the Liberal/Conservative/Progressive coalitions which promptly led to a party merger between the Liberals and Progressives in Manitoba in the 1930s and the Liberal/Conservative coalitions in BC in the 1930s and 40s). There seems to be the fear that where coalitions are largely unknown to Canadians that the electorate would no longer separate the two parties in their minds and that the senior partner would benefit from any "good news" accomplished by the government. Besides that, which I think means we'll likely never see a coalition in Canada, the NDP will not want to be associated with Martin and the Liberals which, even should they eke out a slim victory, would still be seen as "dead man walking" - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:As well, not to pick nits, but (obvious reasons notwithstanding) should bodies of water be uncoloured? The blue resembles a lower shade of support for the BQ, and might imply a sea of ... BQ (which appear unique from CPC blues, BTW)! :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 05:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: Another thing to note, usually in the scenario of a tie for a number of seats the popular vote precedent has been loosely followed. Though the only chance of seeing that scenario taking precedence this election is if the Bloc and NDP tie for opposition leader, in which case jack layton would live in [[Stornoway (residence)]] from winning the most votes. However, Gilles Duceppe was a resident for a short time, so that may come into play.--[[User:68.73.55.59|68.73.55.59]] 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

TheCharlottetown, UnionistSydney Governmentand ofHamilton Robertare Lalso missing from the map.Borden wasYou inmight officealso duringwant Worldto Warconsider Ia NOTcity Worldin WarNew IIBrunswick. -- [[User:GoodDayEarl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|GoodDaytalk]] 1704:3235, 2025 January 2006 (UTC)

:As for cities, I'd suggest including capitals (with labels, like [[Charlottetown]]) but otherwise include only cities – actually, [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada|metro areas – with over 200 000 people]] (or higher threshold?) ... which amounts to around two dozen locales in all. Anything more would occlude the map. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== issues ==

:As well, though it does appear that most cities predominantly supported the Liberals (which I find ''very'' interesting, particularly for this elxn), could there be any confusion (legend notwithstanding) of colouring cities red? Perhaps a colour not used for the parties: yellow, green, pink, white ...? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a summery, even if only quick and dirty, needs to be provided in for this section. Otherwise having a section at all would makes little sense, wouldn't it? [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 18:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, I would prefer if there were no labels at all, but that's just me. BTW, [[Acadie—Bathurst]] on your map appears to be using the old 2004 boundaries. Check the Elections Canada website for the proper boundaries. (They had a judicial inquiry about it) -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 08:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think that would work on this page because there are too many issues and you cannot select only a few. That is why we have the [[Issues_in_the_Canadian_federal_election%2C_2006|issues in federal election]] page.--[[User:Omnieiunium|Omnieiunium]] 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One other little thing: I would erase some of the rivers. It looks like [[British Columbia Southern Interior]] is two ridings. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I put a short blurb there anyway, if only to fill the space.[[User:Circeus|Circeus]]

* In response to Mwalcoff's requests for colors, I've made the bloc a more greenish color. (the old maps are still available, though) I also made the cities grey, instead of red.

== Humour Links? ==

* As for other requests...

** I prefer listing the bloc third (they got the third most # of seats).

** I'm not going to change the blue color of the water (this is a semi-official color for water, used across Wikipedia - [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps]]).

***Hey, I'm all for standards with maps, but the plethora/continuum of blues in the map (particularly for the BQ) can possibly confuse the issue: the water blue is one not necessarily required in this instance. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

** There's not good place to put labels for Charlottetown, Hamilton, ..., so I've left them off.

***Perhaps include short lines from labels leading to the appropriate city (e.g., offset in the Atlantic somewhere)? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

** The electoral district boundary source data is from [http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/clf/en?action=fullMetadata&entryId=1169 Geogratis - Natural Resources Canada / Elections Canada]. "[http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/clf/en?action=fullMetadata&entryId=1169 GeoGratis attempts to keep the most current electoral boundaries on the site.]" These boundaries might not be 100% up-to-date, but it's the best I could find.

** As for the rivers, I feel they need to be there if I'm going to include the major lakes (e.g. Great Slave Lake).

***While appropriate in a geophysical map, I feel that the rivers are not required in this variant of a political map. I'm ambivalent about large bodies of water, which are a different matter: it'd be rather odd to omit, say, [[Lake Winnipeg]] and to exhibit a rather incorrect rendering of ridings in Manitoba ... or the [[Great Lakes]]. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

* Finally, in the Wikipedia spirit, feel free to take these maps and improve them. Maybe in the next few days, I'll have the time to go back and convert the source data into svg and upload that without labels. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

** Again, these are great maps. And take all of the above as constructive criticism from Wikipedians who undoubtedly want to accentuate the positive. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

**Please change the Bloc back to the light blue it was at. Green is just plain wrong. If you're going to use a non-blue colour, use purple (official maps used purple in 1997 iirc for the Bloc) -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 01:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

***I don't know, Green seems to work the best. As long as it is discribed in the legend, I don't see the problem in using easy to read colours! I agree with you that lables are over rated. Kmf, The maps look great!--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]][[User: Colle|Colle]] 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

****Thanks for all the feedback. The bloc=cyan map is back, but with link to the alternative version. Re: labels, I assume you all are Canadian and well-versed in Canadian geography. However, I think the maps are as much for Americans or people from elsewhere in the world who see the item on the Main page, In the news section and click on the link. Even on [[Jeopardy!]], people often get confused with basic Canadian geography, so I think labels are important. I hope the colors are clear enough, too (in the U.S. red=republican/conservative and blue=democrats/liberal). -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still the mistake with the plural NDP in the legend. And I would put the Bloc last, becaue they had the least votes. I see your point about making it clear for the Americans though. I saw a TV News story just after the election where they were interviewing people in suits at Washington DC about opinions on the election. Two comments were "I didn't know they got a new President!!" and "I hope the new government encourages opening up the boarders for more tourism, and allows more U.S. visitors" Sorry, off topic. --[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]][[User: Colle|Colle]] 05:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[[User:SYSS Mouse|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). --[[User:Otter Escaping North|Otter Escaping North]] 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Okay. I have corrected the spelling. As for any other changes, I've done too much with the maps in photoshop, to go back and change anything significant like rivers. Though, in my opinion I still consider rivers semi-important, as the geopolitical divides sometimes follow natural features (e.g. western/eastern B.C.). The Peace River eminates from this divide. Again, those are just my opinions and feel free to edit the maps, erase the rivers, add labels ... in a photoshop, gimp, or whatever. I'll certainly keep in mind all the suggestions and comments &mdash; I didn't expect so much feedback :) &mdash; with maps in the future (e.g. 2006 U.S. election maps). Thanks. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== Party slogans? ==

Thanks so much for making the "colorblind version." It really helps. The only riding that's still problematic on it is Brome—Missisquoi, because the green is so light. Perhaps you should write "BQ" in the riding or something. You also might want to label the riding won by the independent as "Indep." or something, since there is no color in the legend for an independent. Also, Brossard—La Prairie appears to have been left in cyan in the colorblind map.

Recent election pages have sections for the party slogans of each election. Perhaps we should have one for this page as well? -- [[User:RPIRED|RPIRED]] 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job! -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'd say no, but I don't feel too strongly about it. It's trivia, but not particularly informative. --[[User:Otter Escaping North|Otter Escaping North]] 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds this map misleading? Parliament is not represented by provinces, but by federal ridings. While I appreciate the work that has gone into this, I wonder if it may not be more productive to obtain permission to reproduce something like the map that appears on the Elections Canada website, which colours the ridings accordingly. Any thoughts? [[User:Fishhead64|Fishhead64]] 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::I think it gives the flavour of the campaign. I'd include them. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

: Actually, the map summarizes the number of seats won in each province, thus representing the situation more or less accurately. Someone has actually made a map that colours each riding individually, and its at the more detailed [[Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006|election results]] page. It was on this page originally, and I'm assuming it got moved there as part of the drive to reduce clutter on the main elections page. [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 08:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the fine map. I found it much more useful than the graphics constructed by the Canadian news organizations. (And said so on my web site, "Jim Miller on Politics".)

:::I agree. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did notice one minor glitch: The article advertises a high resolution version of the map, but both yesterday and today, the link did not take you to that file. You may also want to put a link in for the big official PDF map. -Jim Miller 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also new here, but I feel it's reasonable to have a link to some political satire. [[User:Jaderaid|Jaderaid]] 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

: There is actually a link to the big PDF map, it's on the bottom with the other "External Links". It might be appropriate in the results section though.. wasn't sure so just put it with the other links. [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Slimming down the article ==

If anyone cares, the slogans are as follows

:Liberals - ''Choose your Canada''

:*This is the same slogan they used in 2004? - [[User:RPIRED|RPIRED]] 04:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:Conservatives - ''Stand Up for Change''

:*Is this or ''Stand Up for Canada'' more apt, which seems to be more prevalent? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:*I agree: one sees "Stand up for Canada" much more than "Stand up for change", and that's what's on their [http://www.conservative.ca website]. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)<br>

:*Yup, I only realized that after I had posted it and had time to think about it. Stand Up for Canada makes much more sense. [[User:Snickerdo|Snickerdo]] 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:Bloc Quebecois - ''Heureusement, ici, c'est le Bloc'' (en: Thankfully, here, it's the Bloc)

:NDP - ''Getting results for Canadians''

:Green - ''We Can''

As mentioned by E Pluribus above, it takes quite a bit of scrolling to read the article. In order to trim it down I propose, if noone objects, to remove, seriously slim down or move to another article the following parts:

[[User:Snickerdo|Snickerdo]] 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

* "Brinksmanship in the spring of 2005" - it is interesting, but not entirely relevant to the election, as it happened some 1/2 year before the election was called

* "Election day" that mentions when the polls close - I'm sure it all can be summarized in a single sentence.

* "Vulnerable ridings" - an interesting section, but takes up quite a bit of space, and an average reader probably wouldn't be interested in it that much, esp. now that the election is over. Propose to move it somewhere else, or give it its own article.

::This would be useful to keep as its own article. We could then track the ridings to see if they remain vulnerable, with a view to eventually understanding the various factors that make a riding vulnerable. [[User:JTBurman|JTBurman]] 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

* "Cabinet ministers who won by less than 5% in 2004" - that was in 2004, probably would be better off in the 2004 election page? Esp. now that the election is over

::Is there any connection to those who lost their seats in this election? If not, then I agree that it should be removed. If, however, there is a connection (e.g., [[Olivia Chow]]), then I think the relevant aspects should be folded into a subsection at the proposed "Vulnerable Ridings" page. [[User:JTBurman|JTBurman]] 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:Perhaps,That alternativelyshould probably make it somewhat easier to read, theseesp. canfor an average passer-by who happens to be includedinterested in the infoboxes2006 forelection. each federalThoughts, partycomments? [[User:E Pluribus AnthonyIkh|E Pluribus AnthonyIkh]] | ([[User talk:E Pluribus AnthonyIkh|''talk'']]) | 1409:3229, 1725 January 2006 (UTC)<br>

AccordingWell tosomeone [http://www.blocquebecois.org/archivage/blq-depsyntese-anglo.pdfcould put the Bloc'sgender Englishbreakdown abstract],back "Thankfully,where I had hereput it's, in the Bloc",table issummarizing the correctseats. English translationThat ofwould thetake pary'sabout slogan.15 [[User:Groundcm Zero|Groundoff Zero]]the |length of the article! [[User talk:Ground ZeroNfitz|tNfitz]] 2100:4452, 1826 January 2006 (UTC)

*I agree generally that this article should be slimmed down, and agree with the suggestions above, with the exception for the one about the gender breakdown. I've reduced the size of that table by splitting into two tables side-by-side. I'd also note that the table now incorporates a "% of female candidates" column, which I think is useful. This would make three extra columns to add back into the main table. This info was originally removed from the main reuslts chart because it was not directly relevant to the ''results'' of the election, although it is clearly relevant to the election article. I think that the relevance is better explained by putting it into its only sub-section with some text providing context. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:As above, can we not do as was done with the opinion polling: summarise the gender breakdown in a few lines in-text (comparison with prior periods and other countries), while moving cumbersome (though informative) tables to appropriate sub/articles? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::I generally support branching to limit the size of articles. In this case, the branch article will pretty much just be the table. If everyone else wants to do that, then go ahead. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Great; I'll work on this. Given issues regarding gender equality in Canadian politics, and comparisons both temporally (with prior elxns) and internationally, I'm sure such an article can be expanded in time (i.e., becoming more than just a table). Besides: I can think of more [[Stockwell Day#2000 Election|dubious branchings/elaborations]]. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::::It would be fantastic to see what the sex breakdown of elected MP's is this time around. The current candidate graph is kind of misleading because the big parties tend to put old white guys in the safe ridings.--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]][[User: Colle|Colle]] 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::... who arguably also need to slim down ... present company included, too! :) (I also commend the Wikipedian who recently slimmed down and archived this talk page.) I'll work on it. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

== Green Party: "Contenders"? ==

== Newspaper endorsements ==

Near the top of this article is a section titled "Contenders", with writeups and photos of the leaders for the four parties that won seats in the election ''and one other''. Of course there is nothing wrong reporting information for the [[Green Party of Canada|Green Party]], but when they have never -- including this time around -- won a single seat or as much as 5% of the popular vote, they do not belong on a list of "contenders", a word that suggests an actual chance of winning something.

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]] [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

*Maybe a page. A section could get unwieldy if people want to start including the [[Bobcaygeon, Ontario|''Bobcaygeon Independent'']] and the [[North York, Ontario|''North York Mirror'']]. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:[[Newspaper endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006]] - the list should only include daily newspapers, however, it can include smaller-city dailies. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Either there should be a section on "other parties" (or "other candidates", including independents), with the Greens listed first, or else the title "contenders" should be changed to something more inclusive.

==Endorsements==

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. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*I would propose, as a start,

#removing endorsements of the thousnads of individuals candidates, leaving only endorsements of the parties; and

#removing endorsements by politicians associated with provincial countrpart parties, i.e., the Bernard Lords of the world, who can reasonably be expected to endorse their federal counterparts. (I would exclude Mario Dumont from the exclusion since the ADQ is not directly linked to the CPC).

[[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, the wording about "polling" as much as 10% nationally could be read as referring to actual election results. Given the subject matter of this article and the margin of error of opinion polls, I suggest that it would be better to refer to election results; the present wording seems to me like a POV attempt to promote what is still a minor party.

: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? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*You have my vote, Anthony. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*Done. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:* 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. :) [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[[User:207.176.159.90|207.176.159.90]] 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Spoiler warning ==

:The Greens got 4.3% and 4.5% (close enough for your "5%" complaint) in the past two Federal elections, ran a full slate of candidates both times, and are considered to be a "major party" by the press. Compare to the true "minor parties", none of which got more than 0.3% or had anywhere near a full slate. The Greens did have a debatable chance to win a riding, and could take enough leftist votes to affect both the NDP and Liberal's chances in close ridings. I'm NOT a green and I don't think that their inclusion is POV (note also that lessor parties have been know to make sudden inroads in Canadian elections - such as Reform, the BQ, the BC Liberals, etc). [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 00:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple people have said that it would be "immoral" or "unethical" to print results from eastern ridings before the BC polls close.

::That said, while the Greens increased their vote, their closest riding this time around was a solidly Conservative riding in Ontario rather than a four-way swinger in BC. They're further from winning a seat than last election even though their vote total increased. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]]

However, I can't see it as an ethical problem if we do it in a way that ensures that the only people who see the results are the people who want to see them.

::: Canadian media usually mentions Greens, and yeah, they probably did have a chance to win a riding or two, so I agree that we should keep them [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 10:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::No, they did not have "a chance to win a riding or two". Not even close. There were exactly 3 ridings where a Green candidate finished higher than 4th place. The closest of these was Bruce&mdash;Grey&mdash;Owen Sound, where the result was Miller (C) 48.2%, Jackson (L) 27.6%, Jolley (G) 12.9%, McIllwraith (NDP) 11.3%. That 12.9% is the highest percentage polled by any Green candidate; only 8 of their candidates reached 10.0%. The two other Greens who finished 2nd or 3rd in their riding were in ridings where the Conservative won an actual majority of the votes: Wild Rose with Thompson (C) 72.2%, Maw (G) 10.8%, Stewart (L) 9.7%, Nelles (NDP) 7.3%; and Calgary West with Anders (C) 58.8%, Pollock (L) 22.1%, Roberts (G) 10.3%, Bondaroff (NDP) 8.3%. (All data as of 2 days after the election, when I downloaded the detailed results from the Elections Canada website.)

You know the spoiler warning we use for movies? How about this:

::However, it is possible that in some ridings where the vote between the leading candidates was close, the existence of a Green candidate drawing a more typical 5% may have changed the result.

<div class="notice metadata" id="spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning|Spoiler warning]]: ''Election results follow. Do not read this section if you do not want to know who has won eastern ridings.'''''</div>

::Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with giving the Greens a writeup, only with its placement under the heading "Contenders". So that I've done is, I've changed the section title from "Contenders" to "Parties" and added a sentence at the end saying that other parties are listed in the table of results : that would be the true fringe parties like the Marxist-Leninists and Christian Heritage and the Marijuana Party. Incidentally, the best individual result for any candidate of these parties was in Nunavut, where the result was Karetak-Lindell (L) 39.1%, Aglukark (C) 29.6%, Riddell (NDP) 17.6%, deVries (Marijuana) 7.8%, Kappi (G) 5.9%. Next best fringe party candidate was a Christian Heritage at 3.4%. Of course, there were independents who did better, including one who won a seat.

As far as the legal liability... what can Canadian prosecutors do? Try to subpoena users' IP addresses from the Wikimedia Foundation?

::If someone wants to change it back, I won't interfere, but I think my version is an improvement. [[User:207.176.159.90|207.176.159.90]] 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 06:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with 207.176.159.90, the Greens were certainly not "Contenders". Only the CPC/LPC/NDP/BC were serious player in the election, participating in debates and being the subject of much talk in the media. I really don't think many Canadians would include the Greens as "Contenders". -[[User:PhDP|PhDP]] 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Elections Canada has a history of not pursuing non-Canadians who violate Canadian election laws, even if their identities are well-known and they visit Canada. In previous elections they have warned foreign celebrities (most notably [[Michael Moore]] and [[Bono]]) not to endorse candidates or parties, but took no action against them when they did so. --[[User:Llewdor|Llewdor]] 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: I would keep the Greens in the "Contender" section even though I don't think they really have much of a chance winning a seat. One must note that the Greens come in second in many ridings, EVEN in Alberta, beating Liberals and/or NDP candidates. But my point is, the Greens have been one of the five '''official parties''' since the 2004 election, and they should be treated equally with the other four. --[[User:Kvasir|Kvasir]] 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::None of this is true. The Greens finished second (a very, very distant second) in exactly one riding, not "many." There are only four "[[Official_party_status|official parties]]" in Parliament; the Greens are not one of them. In terms of parties officially registered with Elections Canada, there are far more than five. The Greens do have the distinction of being the party that got the most votes without winning any seats in Parliament; they belong in a category all their own in between the "serious" parties and the "fringe" ones in terms of competitiveness. --[[User:Caradhras|Caradhras]] 02:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I think what Kvasir means by "official party" is a party which received more than 2% of the vote and was elligible for federal funding. That gives them an actual legal distinction from the other smaller parties but, I agree, they shouldn't be included in the same category as the big four. - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'd support a spoiler warning (see below), but that doesn't obviate the possible impropriety of anyone posting results no matter where they are. See discussion above and below.

== "Weakest" Minority Government? ==

:And the example above, Ll, is rather like comparing apples and oranges – we're dealing with a highly visited website that isn't a news service. The point? There's no reason for us/Wp to possibly contravene Canadian law when alternatives exist (particularly in the few hours before results actually are legally available): we can still provide links to media sources that choose to flaut the law (wherever they are), and then update Wp when there's no ambiguity – legally or morally – about doing so.

I wouldn't really agree with this. Just because a Government has a smaller amount of seats doesn't mean that it is more prone to collapse than a Government that has a larger amount of seats, that may not be able to find as much support. For example, I would say that if the Bloc is likely to support the Tories, they have a solid majority together, which was not the case with Liberal + NDP in the last Parliament, say. Maybe it could be more unstable - but we can't really know for sure until we see how well the parties work together. -[[User:Nichlemn|Nichlemn]] 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:To that end, why tempt fate? What is to ''stop'' Cdn. litigators from prosecting possible improrieties online? It's a topic that has already been addressed with the Bryan case. I also recall there being a case somewhere, for instance, where defamation of someone online in another country was prosecuted elsewhere. And for those who assert free speech etc., [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|read about what Wikipedia is/not]]. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 15:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:I have changed the wording of that section, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.--[[User:Kalsermar|Kalsermar]] 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== ResultsPoll on electionfull party names or nightshort names==

User:Electionworld and I disagree about how the party names should be presented in [[Template:Canadian federal election, 2006]], which is the table that displays the overall election results. I will accept the decision of other editors, and hope that User:Electionworld would as well. Please add your name below as appropriate. I propose to let this poll run until the end of the day (UTC) on Jan. 31. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:This poll can be finished. Ground Zero won clearly. The next step to make the table more clear and shorten is to delete the names of the party leaders. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Other than removing a column, how would deleting the names of party leaders be at all productive or make things clearer? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 12:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

'''In favour of using full party names''' (e.g., "[[Conservative Party of Canada]]")

Are the results going to be posted on this page or on another page during the night, as they come in? If it's on another page, can someone point me to it, maybe I can help in the process. Thanks. [[User:206.47.141.21|206.47.141.21]] 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

#[[User:Electionworld]].

#

#

#

'''In favour of short forms''' (e.g., "[[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]]")

See the discussions above regarding the legality of posting election results on the page. From what I have read, there is still no consensus. In my opinion, although there really is no point in holding results back (especially because West-Coast Polls close only 30 minutes after most of Canada), we should still abide by the same rules that the major media sources plan to follow. If anything, it would edify the credibility of Wikipedia. And to Ray Oiler's Comment above - we will choose not to post elections results during the publication ban period for the same reason why we stop at a red light at 2 in the morning: because the law is the the law and we, as good citizens of Canada chosoe to abide by it. [[User:Mav-TGIF|Mav-TGIF]] 00:14, 19 January 2006

#[[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]].

#[[User:Cmc0|Cmc0]]

#[[User:The Tom|The Tom]]

#[[User:Colle|Colle]]

#[[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]]

#[[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC) There may be exceptions, perhaps necessitating longer names or the use of agreed-upon initialisms instead, but (by analogy) there's no reason to refer to ''[[Paul Martin|The Right Honourable Paul Edgar Philippe Martin]], <small>[[Queen's Privy Council for Canada]], [[38th Canadian parliament|Member of Parliament]], [[Bachelor of Arts]], [[Bachelor of Laws]]</small>'' when the popular or simpler name will generally suffice. And therein lay the joy of the piped link. As well (variably), even the [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&dir=39ge/loc/lis&document=index&lang=e&textonly=false Elections Canada website uses short form names]. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

#[[User:SNIyer12|SNIyer12]]

#[[User:Circeus|Circeus]]

#[[User:Ikh|Ikh]] No point in wasting space, the short form should be clear and unambiguous. [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

#This is an election, in which ''parties'' compete for seats, in ''Canada''. Thus putting Liberal ''Party of Canada'', etc seems a bit redundant - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

#[[User:Valmi|Valmi]][[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]]

#[[User:Tomtheman5|<b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b>]][[User talk:Tomtheman5|<sub style="color:black;">(the man)</sub>]] I have to admit, it was a tough sell, but the shorter version has grown on me, and the extra words just really aren't so necessary.

#—[[User:Cuivienen|<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b>]] <span style="font-size:x-small;">([[User Talk:Cuivienen|<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>]])</span>

#Common sense says use short names. [[User:207.176.159.90|207.176.159.90]] 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Discussion'''

:I don't know about you, but the reason I stop at red lights in the middle of the night is because there might be a cop somewhere and because there might be a car coming the other direction that I don't see. If I could guarantee that I would not be injured or pulled over for running the light, I would do so. And that's a law that could hardly be considered an infringement on personal liberty, whereas the election results gag law is a form of censorship.

*There is no candidates of Liberal, but of the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not see any reason not to include the full party names. Be aware that this template is also used in other entries. Comparable templates on elections in other countries use full party names. [[User:Electionworld]].

*Adding "Party of Canada" after each party name adds no information to the table, but makes the table more crowded and more difficult to read. Comparable templates for other countries are mixed in their use of full party names: for the UK and New Zealand, only the most recent election or two use full names, other use short forms; for Australia, where the tables exist, they use full names; for the US, they use only short forms. For Canada, only the 2004 and now the 2006 tables use full names, all others use short forms. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of short forms. We need to keep the table more organized and less crowded

*Long names add nothing of value and are rarely used. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Bloc slogan? ==

:You're right that there's only a 30-minute difference between poll closing times in BC and the rest of Canada, so by the time we get the results up, it will be legally OK anyway. But what about the results from Atlantic Canada? If someone puts those results up, are you going to play censor and delete them? That would mean you would be looking at the results before you were supposed to, you bad person, you. (Unless you are in Atlantic Canada.) And what if the results are posted by a non-Canadian? That wouldn't be illegal.

Did the Bloc truly have an English slogan in the 2006 election? As far as I know it was just in French. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:Yes on their website they had an executive summary of their platform with the English title. [http://www.blocquebecois.org/archivage/blq-depsyntese-anglo.pdf] - [[User:Jord|Jord]] 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== NDP Slogan ==

:Considering the fact that the early results are going to be widely available online, there's really no point in waiting until the BC polls close to list them. But if it makes you feel better to wait, be my guest. -- [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 10:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I write to explain my revert of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election%2C_2006&diff=38486877&oldid=38250053 NDP slogan edit]. Even as the slogans appended are used passim by the NDP, sundry extant campaign sites (e.g., [http://michaelshapcott.ca/ this one], from Michael Shapcott) provide the idea that the principal English-lanuguage NDP slogan for the federal election was "Getting Results for Canadians". The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.198.222.59 IP address] from which the edits were made appears to have given rise to many good edits, especially apropos of Canadian government and politics, and, so, I imagine that the editor will offer links supporting his/her edit in the case that such links exist. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the editor in question, but I do offer this link. The [http://www.ndp.ca/platform NDP Platform] page has the title: "Getting results for people". Also on the NDP website are [http://www.ndp.ca/wallpaper wallpapers] that list the slogan as "Getting results for people". The NDP website also has some of the [http://www.ndp.ca/tvads TV ads] they ran. The tagline at the end is "Working Families First" (at least for the first two ads I watched). [[User:Jhayman|Jhayman]] 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[[#Election_night_publication_ban|See above.]] Essentially: there's no reason for us/Wp to possibly contravene Canadian law when alternatives exist (particularly in the short time before results actually are legally available). Wikipedia isn't a news service, and we can still provide links to media sources that choose to flaut the law (wherever they are), and then update Wp when there's no ambiguity – legally ''or'' morally – about doing so. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 11:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

==Bloc slogan again==

I will be surprised if no one tries to post results in other timezones before all of the polls in the whole country have closed. What will we do if this happens, revert their edits? The results would still be available in the page's history anyway. My question is, where are we going to post the results, on this page or on another one? Will there be a page [[Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006]] or something like this? [[User:206.47.141.21|206.47.141.21]] 13:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bloc's '''official''' English translation of its slogan was "Thankfully, here it's the Bloc". See their website: [http://www.bloc.org/archivage/blq-depsyntese-anglo.pdf]. You can choose to translate their French slogan into English however you want, but let's use the official translation for Wikipedia purposes, please. Thanks. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

==Leave The Results Be!==

:I don't disagree. Hopefully, anyone attempting to add this information would have read or participated in the discussions herein. If noone can verify or cite reliable sources (and by this I mean Elections Canada, and this would be nigh impossible given the general ban and rapidity of events on election night), arguably removal of this information from Wp might by the ''only'' feasible option. In any event, I wouldn't hesitate in reverting said contributions (and others should too), and anyone rebuking our discussions would deserve that. As for it remaining in the history, that is part-and-parcel of editing: we would't have to potentially 'muddy' the article history if said editors respected the discussions and [[WP:CON|consensus above]] to refrain.

This is just the results of the 2006 Election. I have just noticed that as soon as Garth Turner was expelled from the Conservative caucus, it was immediately reflected on here. How is it that you can change Mr. Turner from a Tory to an Independent, but can take out of the picture the fact that someone left federal politics, someone crossed the floor and someone died since the election. Could someone please redo the picture of the House to either show the January 23 results OR the current composition, not a little bit of both. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:24.200.132.120|24.200.132.120]] ([[User talk:24.200.132.120|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.200.132.120|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:As for where this information should ultimately reside, the title you propose would be consistent with the 2004 election and would do nicely (methinks) for the current election. The information can then be retrofitted/summarised on the main election page once the dust has cleared. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

== Parties: Green support "in fact" ==

::First of all, there is no consensus on this issue. It appears that a couple of people support following the gag law, a couple oppose, and a couple are concerned about the legitimacy of the information available before 10 EST. That does not make a consensus. Even if there was a consensus on this page, the views of 4 or 5 people would not create a Wikipedia policy that we abide by the censorship laws of every country. If that were the case, there would be a whole bunch of China-related articles we'd have to delete.

<blockquote>

::During the Gomery publication ban, Wikipedia users added information from the Captain's Quarters blog (which turned out to be accurate). In this case, there will be far more information available from offline news sources in Atlantic Canada, as well as US-based websites.

in fact, polls have suggested that the Green Party in Canada draws more of its support from Conservative-identified voters than it does from Liberal or NDP supporters.

</blockquote>

I would like to see what polls support this alleged "fact". Certainly, in the recent London North Centre by-election, the NDP was the most affected by the rise of the Green Party, whereas the right wing parties (Libs and CPC) more or less retained their vote. So, please include references to these specific polls that you refer to. Thanks. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Mark alfred|Mark alfred]] ([[User talk:Mark alfred|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mark alfred|contribs]]) 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

::As far as I'm concerned, any attempt to delete results obtained through legitimate sources should be considered vandalism, and anyone who makes those deletions should be blocked from editing the page. -- [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

==Incorrect party representation graphic==

:::As you will see above, some advocates of prematurely including this information have agreed to a compromise that, out of propriety, allows everyone to have their cake and eat it too. If someone is strongly compelled to post results and possibly flaut the law, they can do so on a personal page and take the potential responsibility without possibly imperilling the Wikimedia Foundation. And there's ''definitely'' no consensus to proceed as you suggest.

The current graphic at the top of the page colours all of the NDP's seats as Liberals. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed [[User:Jhayman|Jhayman]] 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:::What happened with the Gomery Commission, et al. is irrelevant, since the ban was lifted by Gomery himself after snowballing. No such revocation of the ''[[Canada Elections Act]]'' in totality has occurred, save nicities above. To that end, Wikipedia isn't a news service; perhaps Wikinews is more appropriate. And, still, links can be provided on Wp to offline and online news sources elsewhere.

== Hung Parliment ==

:::And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who adds information prematurely and without credibly sourcing it (in this case, there's only one: Elections Canada) is being disruptive and should be reverted, and should be blocked from editing the page. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a hung parliament to me, but I see no mention of the word hung on the page, is there a reason why the left wing parties don't form A coalition? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ajuk|Ajuk]] ([[User talk:Ajuk|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ajuk|contribs]]) 09:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::There is not an ounce of risk to the Wikimedia Foundation. Absolutely zero. It is not even remotely an issue. The Wikimedia Foundation and its equipment is in the United States, where of course Canadian censorship laws do not apply.

:Canadians generally doesn't use the term "hung parliament", and most of us would draw a total blank if someone used the term. As for why the left-wing parties don't gang up, there's no real history of that in Canada. Extensive Liberal-NDP cooperation had been seen in the Pearson era, for example, but never has a government contain members from more than one party. Hence "hung parliament" (i.e. no party has >50%) is synonymous in Canada with "minority government" (i.e. government party has <50%), although technically you can have the former without the latter.

::::Wikipedians added info on the Gomery commission ''during'' the publication ban.

:Also, the Liberals tend to span a relatively large part of the political spectrum: they certainly don't need to re-brand themselves like New Labour did to shore up their economic credentials. So the Liberal-NDP pairing isn't quite as natural or obvious as it may seem at first glance to outside observers. Indeed in the past few years there's been more floor-crossing between the Conservatives and the Liberals than between any other parties, which suggest that they would be the ones most ideologically compatible: not surprising for a (sort of) two-party system.

:See [[Minority governments in Canada]] for the historical background. [[User:Kelvinc|Kelvinc]] 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg==

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]

'''[[:Image:Can-pol w.jpg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]].

Please go to [[:Image:Can-pol w.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

::::I don't believe that Elections Canada is the only reputable source for results on election night. I would say that the CBC or CTV or AP or whoever would be perfectly acceptable -- as long as we cite our sources. This is the way it works with everything else on Wikipedia. -- [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::"''Yahoo! is necessarily arguing that it has a First Amendment right to violate French criminal law and to facilitate the violation of French criminal law by others. [...] the extent — indeed the very existence — of such an extraterritorial right under the First Amendment is uncertain.''"

::::::I will go with the opinion of the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] over the opinion of a random Wikipedia editor, at least when it comes to First Amendment questions. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::This is your opinion, just as the above is mine et al. And the fact that Wikipedians added information during a ban is no reason for others to repeat a potentially illegal or improper practice for this totally different issue. Such wilfullness is all the more irksome given the wholly practical alternative noted above for that brief period of time before electoral results ''are'' legitimately posted.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

:::::And on credible sources, I disagree. ''All'' legitimate electoral results, including those reported by the media, stem from Elections Canada; others are arguably illegitimate and not credible. Do what you feel you need to, but don't be surprised if said contributions receive special treatment and are "edited mercilessly". :) That's how everything works on Wp. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 00:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Credible source or not, I would think most respectful Canadian Wikipedians would respect Canadian law which prohibits the premature posting of election day results or at least the rights of all Canadians not to have election day unduly influenced – whether they go looking for early results or not. Likewise, I don’t think our election really matters to most Americans, but I suspect most Americans are decent enough also to respect that prohibition though their right to free speech is Constitutionally protected (it’s just the decent thing to do).

== Turnout ==

Having said that I don’t think Wikipedia will be able to stop idiots for doing just that. Before anyone gets the idea of editing out some idiot’s revisions however, be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule| 3 Revert Rule]] which says that if you do 3 revisions in less than 24 hours you can have your account suspended (even if your intentions were good).

Are figures available anywhere that gives the turnout to the election, that is the percentage of people who voted, compared to the number who could have voted? I believe that this is a useful indicator of the public's belief in democracy and the current state of politics, and would make a useful addition to these pages. [[User:Derek Andrews|Derek Andrews]] ([[User talk:Derek Andrews|talk]]) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All you can do is appeal to people, NOT to be idiots, and respect the law. As for me, I will be glued to my TV, and probably not Wikipedia.

:Voter turnout?? where is it? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.29.161.16|70.29.161.16]] ([[User talk:70.29.161.16|talk]]) 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

-- [[User:LinuxDude|LinuxDude]] 08:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== IS THIS SOME SORT OF JOKE??? ==

:How about a banner at the top of the page stating that results cannot legally be published until 03:30 UTC and that any purported results added before that time should be treated as unverifiable speculation? [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Did someone change the picture of paul martin? Wikipedia is used to provide information not biased opinions or selective inclusion of material. I suggest changing the picture of Paul martin immediately and whoever posted it should be limited editing rights. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.136.95.76|72.136.95.76]] ([[User talk:72.136.95.76|talk]]) 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::<small>Please note that this is [[:Template:ElectionsResultsCA]], which is being edited by the powers of the wiki... [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 11:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)</small>

::I'd support that ...

::Thoughts? [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== Longest Conservative minority, not longest minority ==

::: Looks good; I'd support that. The I'd prefer that though in some combination with the Physchim62's one, as it contains a somewhat sterner warning targeted at the editors (as, so far as I can understand, that is the main concern here - people posting results rather than people reading them). [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite Stephen Harper's claims, the 2006 government was not the longest minority government since Confederation. In fact, there were two minority governments that lasted longer: King's first ministry and Pearson's second ministry. It is however, the longest minority government by a party other than the Liberal Party of Canada, I have changed the wording to reflect this. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gingerbreadmen|Gingerbreadmen]] ([[User talk:Gingerbreadmen|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gingerbreadmen|contribs]]) 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::Great! I think we were each adding these simultaneously (I adapted the one above from aspartan one even further above) ... I'll tweak the template to embrace notions in both. :) Thanks! [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I think we only need one banner! I agree that mine is a bit staid -- we don't really need details of fines, for example -- but I don't think we should imply that we ''encourage'' people to add results in violation of Canadian law. Some editors will do it, maybe, and we can't really prevent it, short of protecting the pages of every federal electoral district! Just let people know that we don't think it's a good idea for Canadians to be doing this sort of thing... [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, only one banner: read above – I'm going to consolidate notions from both into the one template you created. We shouldn't encourage people to add results contrary to Cdn. law (above and beyond usual entry of information in Wp, so please tweak), yet I think the notions about laws and fines are somewhat appropriate: a spade is a spade. People can peruse information (or enter it) at their own risk. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

It should be noted that Canadians have been charged for posting the information even on non Canadian websites. If the information is to be posted, Canadians themselves should refrain from posting it. If your a non citizen and you post them they will probably look the other way, as long as you do not live in the country.--[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

:If you feel a warning is necessary, feel free to post one. However, I think the following sentence is misleading:

::''"As such, any results appearing on this page before 03:30 (UTC) 2006-01-24 are speculative, unverifiable, and unreliable, and may be removed."''

:I have arranged to get numbers from Newfoundland on Monday night. The numbers will be the '''exact same''' type of Canadian Press numbers that will be released nationwide at 10. I personally would never post "speculative, unverifiable, and unreliable" information and would hope that other editors would have the same precaution. It is true that the numbers might not be verifiable ''online''. But there is lots of stuff on Wikipedia that is only verifiable through offline sources.

:It's true that the numbers will be unofficial, but that will apply to any numbers we post in the immediate aftermath of the election. I think that as long as we make clear that the results are unofficial and properly attribute them to the correct online or offline source, there is no need for the disclaimer sentence above.

:I propose the following wording:

::''The following are unofficial results gathered from news media. Do not post any results without properly citing a legitimate online or offline source.'' -- [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 00:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:::All hinges on the sense of the word '''legitimate'''... I could equally propose "The following are unofficial results which have been obtained in contravention of Canadian law. They cannot be verified from official sources. Do not post any purported results unless you are willing to break Canadian law and to risk a C$ 25,000 fine." [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 11:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The template states that we can't publish results until 03:30 UTC, a time which I got from the Village Pump discussion. However the article states that the polls close in BC and YK at 03:00 UTC. Who is right? [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 11:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Canadian federal election, 2006]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698966180 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

::::I was wrong on [[WP:VPP]]. The BC polls close at 10 EST.

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523170735/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2006/02/10/saskrecount060210.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/10/saskrecount060210.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

::::Regarding your proposed language, the results would not be "obtained in contravention of Canadian law." The Canada Elections Act only prohibits ''publishing'' results in certain ways. It doesn't prohibit anyone from calling Newfoundland and asking about them. Saying "they cannot be verified from official sources" is technically accurate, but will be true even after 10 EST and will remain true until Elections Canada certifies official results. And I don't like the tone of the last sentence. -- [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 14:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

::::I needs to be very neutral. Not telling people what they should, or shouldn't do. Simply informational (as is the entire page). I think the current template is close to what it should be. I'd change the current "It is likely to contain information that is speculative or unverifiable in nature. Information may change frequently and, if not from Elections Canada, be unreliable. Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in all electoral districts. As such, any results appearing on this page before 03:00 (UTC) 2006-01-24 are speculative and unverifiable. Editors who post such purported results are breaking Canadian law." to something more netural like "It is likely to contain information that is speculative or unverifiable in nature. Information may change frequently and may not be reliable be unreliable. Because Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in all electoral districts, any results appearing on this page before 03:00 (UTC) 2006-01-24 are speculative and unverifiable." The reason they are speculative and unverifiable, is that we (those of us in Canada) can not legally correct the information, even if we know it to be wrong. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the last sentence is neutral enough. If [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] wishes to post his results, he would still be breaking Canadian law, even though this may have no consequences for him: that is his choice. His edits would, of course, be subject to "merciless editing", as are all edits to Wikipedia. 3RR still applies. It will certainly be difficult to verify results posted before the blackout ends, as most Canadian media outlets will abide by the blackout. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I think the last sentance is redundant with the sentance two earlier. I think all you need is the previous sentance, and then people can make up their own mind. I'm going to do an edit on the template, and then start a new section here. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

==Warning template==

I've nominated that ridiculous [[Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates|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 [http://www.dwt.com/related_links/adv_bulletins/CMITFall1998USMedia.htm] for specific details (this one involving British and Indian libel cases). <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

: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'' [[WP:POV|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. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Who cares what US courts will and won't enforce. Why would a Canadian court rule against an American? The concern is that Canadians will unwittingly add information, and then be charged; which has happened in the past. There's nothing in that template that mentions, the US, Gambia, or Moldovia! It isn't a threat, it's a notice. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 05:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Canadian federal election, 2006]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=749023891 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

: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. [[User:Mirror Vax|Mirror Vax]] 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110083527/http://www.saplin.com:80/vote2006/ to http://www.saplin.com/vote2006

::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". [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 11:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311024650/http://www.trendlines.ca:80/politics.htm to http://trendlines.ca/politics.htm

:::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. [[User:Mirror Vax|Mirror Vax]] 11:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211185631/http://www.mackaycartoons.net:80/election2006.html to http://www.mackaycartoons.net/election2006.html

:::: 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. [[User:Ikh|Ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::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.--[[User:24.222.65.32|24.222.65.32]] 00:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

== Proposed election results template ==

{{ElectionResultsCA}}

This template is currently up for deletion [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 21|here]] and is also discussed on the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#User hints he will delete content on Monday night|Village Pump]]. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

I've moved the [[Template:ElectionResultsCA|template]] down here only, to start the discussion clean; the previous section was getting very long. I've toned the template down, to remove any suggestion of it being a [[Wikipedia:No legal threats|legal threat]] and simply note the law that results in the unverifiability. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 18:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:There does not yet seem to be consensus yet about this 'warning'. I believe that the words ''speculative'' and ''unverifiable'' are incorrect (if a source is cited it is no different than any other wikipedia acrticle). Also Section 329 applies only if published '''from''' Canada. Links to websites with early results might be a good idea since traffic may be high, not to mention an endless stream of reverts from those who disagree with any consensus here. [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]] 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::If referenced from a web-site, perhaps speculative and unverifiable are overkill. But is this likely? Even with the daily polls, often polls are added, and the reference to them doesn't show up until a day or so later. I'd expect what we would get are those listening to either video or audio media in the Atlantic provinces, and then posting the information; I can't imagine any Atlantic media outlets posting on their websites! [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 02:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the current template is fine and don't think it's overkill, particularly given the presence of similar text (which noone seems to dispute) in the current "future election" template. The template above merely reiterates that only results from [[Elections Canada]] – which is ''sanctioned'' to administer and disseminate election results, including to media – should have primacy; anything else might be circumspect. Also, note that media projections/presentations, while worthwhile, can also be erroneous: remember the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000|2000 US presidential election]]? Perhaps replacing the second instances of "speculative and unverifiable" with ''"circumspect"'' would do?

:::Again, we can and should preclude any ambiguity or impropriety during that period by merely providing links to media sources instead of transposing possibly dubious information that isn't necessarily [[WP:V|verifiable]] until all polls have closed ... after which it's a matter for ''Elections Canada'' to verify polling results and [[WP:5P|enabling us to do as we'd normally do]]. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 02:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::::It seems that if news source X reports results Y, we can simply report this fact. What would be unverifiable about that? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::The problem, arguably, is disseminating results through this venue in possible contravention of law and when results might not be authoritative. Anyone can [[WP:CITE|cite ''any'' source]] for information and possibly substantiate it, including a media source, but is it [[WP:V|verifiable]]? I maintain: no. The article deals with (results of) the Canadian federal election; as the federal election is administered by Elections Canada, only information directly from that source is indisputable and truly verifiable ... at least in the interim before results ''are'' widely disseminated/released by them. Note as well that [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is neither a venue for unregulated free speech nor a news service]]. I hope this helps. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Didn't we do the same thing in [[Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2005]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 2004]]? In particular, I distinctly recall US presidential election results being updated on the fly. So from what I've seen, it seems perfectly valid to include election results on Wikipedia. (I discussed the legality issue below.) [[User:TheProject|TheProject]] 03:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::So have we. In essence: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Including election results is not in dispute; see prior entry and extensive discussions above and elsewhere about the propriety of doing so given electoral law/timing and online venues. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 21:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

::::Is it also against the Elections Act in Canada? [[User:SFrank85|SFrank85]] 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Wikipedia can host election results and not be liable. It is not a crime for any person to read the elections results before they are transmitted. It is not a crime for any person outside of Canada to post the elections results. So it seems to me that we can have a page on results with a disclaimer saying that any Canadian editors may be breaking the law by contributing to that specific page.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

:See above. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::Already read above. Seemed to me that some were getting the impression that it would be illegal for *anybody* to post results (including Wikipedia), not just Canadians. :-) [[User:TheProject|TheProject]] 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::As above; this is not clear-cut. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 03:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::::FWIW, CBC's Blog Report stated that "The Act doesn't apply to websites, or broadcasters, outside of Canada", in reference to Captain's Quarters possibly blogging the results from the States. [[User:TheProject|TheProject]] 04:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::[http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/blogreport.html It's here], and how is Mr. Bowman's blog authoritative? This is part-and-parcel of the issue with [[WP:CITE|citing sources]] and [[WP:V|verifying]] them – it's murky. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just modified 7 external links on [[Canadian federal election, 2006]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=793016164 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

Now, what I want to know is -- CBC's election special begins at 9pm EST and is blacked out in BC until 10pm EST, to conform to the law. I take that to mean that they will have official results starting at 9pm (or I may be reading this wrong?), and if so, election results posted at 9pm should be correct (i.e. numbers are as valid as any other on Wikipedia), no? [[User:TheProject|TheProject]] 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4657

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saplin.com/vote2006/

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trendlines.ca/politics.htm

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mackaycartoons.net/election2006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

:Specials typically begin in advance of the release of results to provide (climactic) additional context and analysis regarding the election. As for times, this is noted somewhere above and indicated in the template. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

::The problem with the template is that it indicates that any results before 10 EST are "speculative and unverifiable" but that results after 10:00 are OK. As I've been trying to say, the results before and after 10 will be from the '''exact same sources'''. The only difference is that they will be blacked out before 10 in some places. If you want to point out that the results are unofficial, that's fine, but that won't change at 10:00. The official results might not certified for a week, not counting any recounts. -- [[User:Ray Oiler|Ray Oiler]] 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

:::That is a very good point.[[User:SFrank85|SFrank85]] 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

== Image change suggestion ==

::::I've edited the template to address this. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 03:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::I '''do''' accept your point Ray that any results that are posted at 03:01 UTC will be from the same media sources that have had them for a couple of hours already. I don't know if Elections Canada provides provisional results (it would amaze me if they didn't, but I don't know), but the sources we use at first are likely to be CBC or newspaper sites. The problem is that if results are posted during the blackout by Americans who have telephoned their friends in Newfoundland, how can anyone check them? Users in Newfoundland can presumably switch on the radio or pick up an early edition of the newspaper, but they can't post them on Wikipedia without breaking the law. There are occasions where it is useful for Wikipedia to publish the best information we have, even if it is not perfectly verifiable&mdash;[[Hurricane Katrina]] springs to mind, remember the "disclaimer templates" telling people not to leave their home or shelter solely on the basis of what they read on Wikipedia?&mdash;but for a delay of less than three hours for data which we normally expect to present accurately does not seem excessive to me. That's why I used the term "speculative and unverifiable"; not in any absolute sense, but relative to the accuracy which we would expect of an encyclopedia quoting election results. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 11:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would improve the article if the Martin Image from 2004 was replaced with this one from 2006; [[File:Paul Martin in 2006.jpg|100px|thumb|left]] and the Duceppe one from 2011 be replaced with this one from 2010: [[File:Gilles Duceppe2.jpg|100px|thumb|left]] [[User:Geminin667|Geminin667]] ([[User talk:Geminin667|talk]]) 02:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

== Gender breakdown of Candidates ==

:I reckon, nobody has objected. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

== Should the Greens be in the infobox? ==

I had noticed that the [http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=med&document=jan0506b&dir=pre Elections Canada] press release that all count of candidates on, had a break down by gender. All the information in this release except the gender breakdown made it to the [[Template:Canadian federal election, 2006]]. It didn't seem very NPOV to me, to leave it off, so I added it; but someone else felt it was unnecessary and deleted. I've restored, but what is consensus? [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] 19:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

: I like it. -- [[user:zanimum]]

Seeing as the PPC has now been included at the infobox of [[2021 Canadian federal election]]. Should the Green Party (and its leader) be included in the infobox of ''this'' article? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

:::I like it too. [[User:SFrank85|SFrank85]] 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:No. They fail the usual rule (at least 1 seat or at least 5% of the vote), and don't appear to have received enough coverage for an exception to be made— they weren't invited to the leader debates, nor did they have any polling surge that would make them a story. The Greens weren't noteworthy in this election, and since an infobox is meant to summarize the key points of an article, they don't belong in it. — [[User:Kawnhr|Kawnhr]] ([[User_talk:Kawnhr|talk]]) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

::I don't have a strong feeling about this. At the time, I think it was clearly the right call to exclude them. Since then they have become a political force, and perhaps this was the beginning of the rise. 4.48% is a pretty good showing, and as I have said elsewhere, perhaps it is an edge case. I would '''''lean no''''' unless I saw significant coverage that has arisen since 2006 about this election. Perhaps, significant coverage of [[Jim Harris (politician)|Jim Harris]] and this period for the greens might tip the scale. It might not. But I don't think we should add them now, without good reason to think that "with the benefit of time" (ie looking back), we missed that they were significant to this election, and that conclusion should be based on what [[WP:RS]] have said since about them and their role in the 2006 election. If that were the case, there should also be meaningful mention of them in the article (as this is a well reported on past election).--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

:::Very good points. I agree, if significant retrospective coverage exists then that would be worth considering. — [[User:Kawnhr|Kawnhr]] ([[User_talk:Kawnhr|talk]]) 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

::::If it is agreed that the 5% threshold is after rounding then for consistency we should add them to the infobox. I still disagree with the decisions regarding the [[2021 Canadian federal election]], but if it is approved for one federal election then it should be equally applied to all federal elections. It was noted that they polled nationally as high as 11% during this election period and was also noted to have polled as high as 19% in BC according to coverage by CTV at the time. If the PPC can qualify in 2019 and 2021 with 0 seats and less than 5% of the vote but other parties can't qualify for the same reasons it starts to show bias and makes wikipedia useless as a resource.[[Special:Contributions/142.161.249.114|142.161.249.114]] ([[User talk:142.161.249.114|talk]]) 17:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

:::::Back in 2019 we were biased for including the Greens in one infobox and not the PPC in another, and now we're biased for including the PPC in one election but not the Greens in another. Just can't win! — [[User:Kawnhr|Kawnhr]] ([[User_talk:Kawnhr|talk]]) 17:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::I found it bias to utilize the 5% rule as justification to exclude parties from [[Talk:2021 Canadian federal election/Archive 1#People's Party Platform|''other'' parts]] of the 2021 article, not the infobox. I have since come to see how much the infobox is used to guide and supplant article content in election articles, rather than the reverse as [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes|MOS]] states should happen. I continue to believe these election articles should follow WP-wide policies and guidelines, rather than local consensuses determined for other articles. The infobox should (always) be peripheral to the body content; the infobox should be pared down to only summarize current content and expanded to include additional participants if the article (which follows [[WP:WEIGHT]]...right?) includes them ([[WP:NOTPAPER]]...right?). [[User:Maclean25|maclean]] ([[User talk:Maclean25|talk]]) 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

::The sole criterion for inclusion is what major mainstream media did. While they have their drawbacks, believe me, their judgment is better than a group of Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia policy requires us to follow their lead. The "5% rule" is not a rule but some non-binding decision made in a U.S. presidential election article. There are significant differences between Canadian parliamentary and U.S. presidential elections, beginning with the fact that Canada has more than two parties. If you think major mainstream sources should have included the Greens in 2006, or excluded the PPC in 2021, take it up with them. Then as an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, we can change our articles. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 06:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

:::I generally agree with these comments TFD, but I disagree we are stuck with what [[WP:RS]] did in 2006. If there is significant coverage in RS over the last 15 years (ie since 2006), in the context of this 2006 election, that is a relevant factor for consideration. That said, no one is really pointing to any more recent RS for consideration right now.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

==At least one incorrect riding results on the map image==

In the riding of Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquiltam unlike how its shown on the map the Conservatives won this riding not the Liberals. https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2006-BC.html [[User:Bigdogchampski|Bigdogchampski]] ([[User_talk:Bigdogchampski|talk]])

: The map is definitely wrong. [[User:G. Timothy Walton|G. Timothy Walton]] ([[User talk:G. Timothy Walton|talk]]) 23:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)