Talk:2008 Canadian federal election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Leadership Polls

The third box (overall impression of the party leaders) is sourced from the Strategic Counsel. I was unable to find a source for a poll of leadership impression from the Strategic Counsel on Jan. 3, 2008 and thus erased the entry. If a Strategic Counsel poll can be sourced, please add it back in (in correct chronological order) and state the source, as I did for the other two entries. If it was a non- Strategic Counsel poll, we’ll need to create another column stating the polling company that conducted the poll. Cheers.--Can-eh-dian Redhead (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll Chart

As the poll chart was removed recently because it was out of date, I created this one. It uses data from all the polls found in the article from the last election up to March 2, 2008

What does everyone think?

--Can-eh-dian Redhead (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Canadian pre-40th election polling up to Mar 2 08.PNG

# of Liberal candidates

..Has dropped by 1. Bobby Morrissey as withdrawn as the Egmont Liberal candidate. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So what are we going to do when Harper drops that pesky writ next week?

Will this article be broken up into separate articles? Should the timeline stay as it is? Somebody has to start thinking about it.Ericl (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

14 October

The PMO has confirmed, for lack of a better word, that a federal election will be called for 14 October 2008. I've added that date to the template, although I realise that it isn't official yet. Does this violate any guidelines? Soviet Canuckistan (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They have not confirmed anything. From the article you cite: "The officials said no firm decision has been made, but that it is probable Harper will seek to dissolve his minority government next week, sending the country to the ballot box the day after Thanksgiving." In my mind, it's fine to include the speculation in the article, but until the writ of election is issued, a date should not be included.PoliSciMaster (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an Election speculation section. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We all know it will be an election on 14 October, so perhaps it should be included? JdeJ (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball fishhead64 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder folks, if it's held this year? This article would be moved to Canadian federal election, 20008. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear is what I just heard on the news: It has been confirmed that Stephen Harper will call an election on sunday. The news also said that there will definatly be an october 14 election. --Kanata Kid (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still "sources" telling the media what will happen. Until Harper walks across the street to Government House, and a writ of election is issued, it remains speculation.PoliSciMaster (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's wait until it's official. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Date linking is now deprecated by the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- see MOS:SYL. I have removed the date links to bring the article in line with the manual. Ground Zero | t 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Election Date

I've no citation handy, but CBC news has confirmed that Harper will (on Sunday, the 7th) ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament & call a federal election for October 14th, 2008. However, we still should wait until he & she actually does. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The language CBC uses is simply "expected". It's not likely that there will be an election that day, as it is a Jewish holiday. Common sense dictates CBC is wrong, and nothing should be added to the article about an election date until it is confirmed by Rideau Hall. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Most recent CBC article says: "Harper is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday and ask her to dissolve Parliament, the Canadian Press reported Thursday. Canadians would then go to the polls on Oct. 14." So it is still speculation at this point. As far as the election falling on a Jewish holiday the PMO has already said that they can vote at advanced polls, but it won't change the date. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The CBC story is based on a press release from PMO, indicating that at 8:05am on Sunday, the Prime Minister will depart 24 Sussex to proceed to Rideau Hall, where he will ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament for general elections to be held on October 14. As to the Jewish holiday issue, a press release was issued by the CJC advising that the PM had contacted them to discuss this, and making sure they were aware of the alternatives (advance polling) and asking for their help in communicating that to the members of the Jewish community. This is about as certain as it gets. Despite all of that, I agree that until the Governor General actually authorizes a writ of election, we should wait before updating the page.PoliSciMaster (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We should wait for the official decision. I don't see how it would have much of an impact that it's a Jewish holiday, but no need to speculate about that. We're like to find out tomorrow. JdeJ (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish holiday in question is one that everybody goes to work for unless it's also on Shabbat. It's part of Sukkus, and not an important one at that. It's a non issue by Grits and NDPers to screw things up. Ericl (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll datas section

It's getting too long for the page. Once the election has been called, I propose that we either shorten it or move all of them to a new page and wikilink it. What do you think? Pieuvre (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the principle but disagree about the time to do it. As the election is only five weeks away, the polls are very relevant at the moment. Once the election has taken place, we should keep the polls section but narrow it down quite extensively. JdeJ (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Polls from more than two years ago are not particularly relevant. Perhaps the list should be trimmed to include only polls from the last 6 months, with a link to the full list in a separate article.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the polls hidden but make them appear on the page when requested, the same way that certain templates can be? - Montréalais (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of recent polls and overall trends should be in article but move the full list to a new article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Any poll taken before Jan 1/08 is irrelevant at this point, and any value of polls taken between then and April is questionable. We should have the results of last election of course, but after that I'd say include only May and up at most. I say we keep all the leader polls from this year on though since there are less of them. -Royalguard11(T) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all the historic polls are relevent. But why not do what we did during the last election? After the last campaign started the polls were moved to a subpage (presumably Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2008) and the last couple of weeks were kept on the main page; with all the results moved after the election was completed. There was some talk of this at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive1#2006 Canadian federal election opinion polls Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The list of opinion polls is way, way too long and takes up far too much space. Move them to a subpage quick! --RFBailey (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, in an attempt to get things started, I've brutally moved the polls table to Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2008 as suggested above and removed all but the past month's polls from this article. I don't pretend that this is prettily done but hope the Bold move will encourage others to complete the work. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good bold move! Nfitz (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose moving all the polls to the new article, including the leadership polls and everything else. I think there's not much reason to constantly update two separate pages with the same information. Esn (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Since the writ was dropped (and hence dispelling any notion of WP:CRYSTAL), it seems only proper to put up the actual election infobox, with a draft at User:Kurykh/Sandbox4. Anticipating some questions, I decided to answer two of them preemptively:

• Having the template at all: All declared upcoming elections (i.e. dropping the writ) have this infobox, and this article should be no exception.
• Order of the parties: Before an election has occurred, the order of the parties reflect the incumbent parliament. In this case, the order is Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green.
• Inclusion of the Greens: Blair Wilson is a Green MP, declared a week before dissolution. Since the Greens are now included in the 39th parliament, and parties represented in the previous parliament are shown in the infobox of the current election, it is only natural to include the Greens.

Comments and questions welcome. I will add it to the article if there are no objections. —kurykh 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems good to me! Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New infobox implemented. —kurykh 01:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• To further preemptively tackle the inclusion of Elizabeth May, I think their inclusion does not stem from Blair Wilson, as one MP does not give a party official party status in the House. Her inclusion is based more on the Greens' performance in the last election. In 2006 the Greens got over half a million votes, whereas the other small parties only had tens of thousands of votes. That gap proves that the Greens are not a fringe party. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How much do the Greens need to manage to still be in the infobox after the election? -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the threshold for notability is around 5%. If the Greens get that then they were notable in the campaign; if not we can treat them like any other fringe party. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the threshold for notability should be winning a seat, since this seems to be the threshold for inclusion pre-election. --  timc  talk   16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Timc. Any percentage is fairly arbitrary (i.e., who's to say 5% is more notable than 4%?), whereas winning a seat represents a qualitative difference, and a clear separation from just fringe support. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We already don't have proportional representation in this Country. How are the "fringe" parties going to get any where if nobody shows what choices Canadians have. If someone wants to vote for the Christian Heritage Party or the Neo Rhino they should be given the info to make their free choice. I understand that the media is run by money so it's not cost effective to display all parties, but a site like this where money is not an issue should not have any problem showing all the federal parties in Canada. llotech 21:53, 06 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to be fair, but to be realistic. In any case, we can only fit six parties into the box because of template limitations. —kurykh 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

5% is the national percentage required for a party to receive federal funding toward its expenses. That makes it a somewhat non-arbitrary threshold. - Tenebris

Neophrino didn't lose any seats, the Greens did, the election affected their parliamentary standing, and, unlike the fringe parties, the Greens' campaign and election performance have been the subject of considerable mainstream press coverage. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading information

The mention of this upcoming election and certain parts of this article seem to imply that the Governor General has the independent power to call an election. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. —kurykh 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

She does in a minority government. Peter Grey (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually in any situation the GG does hold the power to dissolve parliament, just it is an established constitutional convention that they only do upon the advice of the PM Xtopher (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the King-Byng affair lead to passage of the 1931 Statute of Westminster preventing this type of event from happening again? NorthernThunder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

King–Byng was one of the causes of the Statute, but it had nothing to do with this issue. King–Byng's legacy was the Balfour Declaration's severing much of Westminster's authority over the dominion governments and make the GG the Queen's representative rather that the Westminster government's. Balfour was in turn codified by the Statute of Westminster. Moreover, the statute that provides for fixed election dates states,

“ 56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion. ”

[1]

Thus, the Governor General has the discretionary power to dissolve Parliament. While, by convention, the GG exercises this power only on the advice of the PM, it would be deceptive to say the PM dissolves Parliament and calls elections. -Rrius (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought we were more autonomous than that. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of autonomy. But even under convention, the Governor General has no duty to follow the PM's advice if he does not have the confidence of the Commons. Peter Grey (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few mistakes on the File:Canada_Fed_election_2008_Ridings.svg map. It has 5 independent victories, and there were only two. (Bill Casey and Andre Arthur). Now it's a bit difficult with a simplified my, but as far as I can tell: Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry is shown as NDP (should be Conservative) Glengarry--Prescott--Russell is shown as Independent (should be Conservative) Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel is show as Independent (should be BQ) Avalon is show as Independent (should be Liberal) 99.240.215.252 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Timelines and "Events since the 2006 election"

I've taken the liberty of removing these sections entirely. They belong more in the 39th Canadian Parliament article and not here. Significant issues pertinent to the election can be added in the "Issues" section. Not only were the two sections essentially the same, but they also unnecessarily cluttered the article, hence their removal. —kurykh 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you thought it belonged there, you should have added it to that article or created a separate article for it. Removing relevant information without at the same time adding it to another place is somewhat irresponsible. Esn (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm restoring. I don't think it should appear here like this, but it belongs somewhere. Nfitz (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind their temporary restoration, but here's my viewpoint: relevant information is already present in that article, and we don't need two redundant timelines that have nothing to do with this article. Also, the sections, especially the "timelines" section, is stuffed with trivia; e.g., how is the registration of Neorhino.ca with Elections Canada significant in the context of this election? Contrary to Esn's assertions, removing the sections without adding it to 39th Canadian Parliament is not irresponsible; just because the other article doesn't have this timeline word for word doesn't mean that we should clutter this article with this mess. Frankly, dumping repetitive and mostly trivial information somewhere else would be even more irresponsible. —kurykh 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Target seats

Did the Greens lose any seats by less than 15% last election? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's on the page already. No, but they lost a London North Centre by-election by 9%, and were polling in 2nd place in Guelph before the four by-elections were canceled by Harper's election announcement. Esn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is listed as a Conservative target seat despite the fact that they won it in the last by-election. IMO the target seats list should be based on the most recent election results, whether it's a general election or a by-election. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be better to keep the current list order, but list by-election results in brackets if applicable. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominated candidates

The # of candidates listed here differs sharply with the #s on this page. There actually seem to be fewer of them, for some reason (e.g. NDP are listed as having 187, but the link says they only have 101). Or am I not understanding something? Esn (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Liberals have 307 candidates, not 303, they are running a candidate in every riding except for Central Nova.

Major parties often have a leaders' understanding that they will not run candidates opposite each other's leaders. I know the Liberals/Greens have this agreement, did not check the others. - Tenebris

Deadline

Is September 22 - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/11/ot-ndp-080911.html - Nickjbor (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandalpedia.ca

Yes, the Liberal Party has unveiled its own -pedia website aimed at outlining Conservative Party controversies. It is mentioned here. NorthernThunder (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Party names

The results tables for elections from 1867 to 2004 use short-form names of parties, i.e., "Conservative", "Liberal", "Marxist-Leninist" instead of the long-form/official names used by the 2006 and 2008 tables that use "Conservative Party of Canada", "Liberal Party of Canada", "Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)".

I think that using the long form names makes the table more crowded without adding any useful information for the reader. the official names are easily found in each of the parties' articles that are linked form the tables. I propose to replace the long-form names (Version A) by short form names (Version B) in the 2006 and 2008 tables.

I also propose to make the table clearer by reducing the emphasis on the dates. Please comment at Template talk:Canadian federal election, 2008. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable! Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club is a notable environmental group and if they're criticizing the Tory plan it should be in the article. If some other notable group is criticizing the other parties' plans too, then we'll put that in as well. If nobody's done that yet, it's no excuse for not having the sierra club quote in the environment section. User:142.56.5.35 has been removing it and I've invited him to comment here instead. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's one of the notable NGOs whose election-related policy announcements should be here (as well as the CTF, Fraser Institute, CLC, etc.). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NDP - Environment

It should be noted that the NDP states in the source article that they will be halting development, not production. One implies that there will be no new projects, the other stops all activity. Prestonlowther (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's my fault for misreading the reference. I've fixed it. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember, it's the politicians job to spin statements, not ours ;) -Royalguard11(T) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC Campaign

Would the ABC campaign be considered an issue for inclusion in this article! --HJKeats (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think so, seeing as it is getting a fair amount of media attention. Another website with the same name, but .com instead of .ca, has also sprung up. A new site at voteforenvironment.com has been picked up in several places, including CBC. Just food for thought.--Northern Fox (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a listing or catagory of ridings?

Huh?

Yartett (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean List of Canadian federal electoral districts ? justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thank you for pointing out that which I should have noticed by paying better attention to!  ;-)
(I'm new here.)
But why "districts" when they are called "ridings?"
Hmmmmmmmm.
Yartett (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always said ridings too, though Elections Canada calls them districts[2]. You say tomayto I say tomahto, I suppose. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crime Discussion

With the unveiling of the Tory crime platform (in particular youth rime), shouldn't there be a section outlining such as an election issue? Eriol Ancalagon (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think those rebellious, rhyming youths should be made an example of in this election. Make them write prose instead! ;-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Feel free to write it, provided its neutral and well-sourced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Debate webcast

As a Canadian living in the US I am trying to find out if the English debate will be streamed on the net by the CBC-or anyone? 68.224.206.168 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• CTV: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip97869#clip97869--
• CPAC: http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=watch&lang=e&watchID=1e
• CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/debates/

WikiWikinger (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

September 22nd nomination and withdrawal deadline

Recently, several candidates who have resigned have been removed from candidate lists. I would like to remind everyone that, as Nickjbor stated earlier, the deadline for nomination and withdrawal is September 22nd. Anyone who resigns after that deadline will remain on the ballot and should not be removed from any candidate list. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a note with the list of the candidates who have resigned or who have lost party nomination after the Withdrawal deadline? They are still on the ballot, but it is still worth noting that they are no longer campaigning or, if elected, not going to sit with their party. Seen0288 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we know from experience when ElectionsCanada will release a final list? -Rrius (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think notes would be appropriate. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO Canadian federal election, 2008 (candidates), Conservative Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election, Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election, Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election and New Democratic Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election should list any candidate who is on the ballot as that party's candidate, with notes for those who are no longer endorsed by the party or have stopped campaigning, such as Julian West or Lesley Hughes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They may be still on the ballot but they are no longer candidates for the party and, thus, do not belong on a list on Party candidates. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But they were still nominated by the parties, are listed on the ballot as their parties' candidates and are still their parties' candidates from a legal perspective. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean the constituents could cast a vote for them? That, in theory at least, there is a probability that one or more of these individuals could become the next MP for their riding, even if they are officially dead as at election day (as has happened at least once in the past)? Then by all means the name must stand on the list of the party's candidates. While I'm on that topic, perhaps we should have a law checking for a pulse after all the nominations are in, this might reduce the number of fenceposts getting elected to represent my home province of Alberta... ;-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Constituents can cast a vote for them and they can be elected but are not able to claim the party's affiliation and would not sit with the party. In case of the death of a candidate, the election for that riding is called off and a by-election is held at a later date. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that they are still their parties' candidates from a legal perspective. I contest that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If party names are on the ballot for candidates kicked out of their parties after the 22nd, in my opinion they should be included on their party's page with an asterisk and listed else where as "independent Liberal", "independent Conservative" etc. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If a candidate is no longer a party candidate then it is incorrect to call them party candidates for the election. It is not only not-Verifiable, it is Verifiably untrue. I suggest a solution as I did for Lesley Hughes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_candidates,_2008_Canadian_federal_election&diff=241277532&oldid=241270284 Listing as no candidate but explaining that she was the party candidate but stepped down. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue should be sorted out on an appropriate project talk page, since it probably affects many election-related pages. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jen Hunter

I would appreciate it if someone would look at the material I added to Talk:Jen hunter and add it to the article if considered appropriate. As a volunteer with the Jen Hunter campaign I've refrained from editing the article directly. Also, the page should be moved to capitalize her last name: "Jen Hunter", not "Jen hunter". Thanks. 70.48.50.161 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Harper plagerism

Just curious. Should we also add in that then (NDP) MP Bob Rae called the Liberal Party of Canada members hypocrits? Not sure, myself. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Rae calling the Liberals hypocrites (whenever he did it) relevant to this election? —kurykh 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on in what context? Was he calling the Liberals hypocrites at the time with regard to something notable that could be construed to be a current election issue? Was he calling them hypocrites in a context that, given his current party affiliation, would make it embarrassingly obvious that he now fits his own label? Or not? These are the questions of context. Please provide the reference to Rae's remarks so we can put them in context. On the other hand, Harper's use of almost identical verbage to John Howard's in his speech from 2003 is relevant now because Canada's ongoing involvement in Afghanistan may prove to be a key election issue this time round. While we don't expect our leaders to write their own speeches, we do at least expect their speechwriters to at least make an attempt to hide the strings of the Washington-based puppeteers. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

This article needs a few improvements. The writing is confusing in places, with dangling and disjoint clauses throughout. Citations aren't provided for some claims, and other claims are presented (with citations) despite the fact they are simply party talking points instead of proven fact. (For example, Conservative party's statement that Green Shift will cause a "big recession"; yes, every party is doing this, I'm just using the most obvious example from the article).

We could also have sections about the hustings and media coverage, as well as info about provincial and territorial government statements about this election. I'm sure there's more I've missed. Mindmatrix 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One obvious exclusion is a comparison of party platforms. Mindmatrix 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then fix it. -Rrius (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd checked the edit history, you'd see that I've been working on it a bit. Since I don't have a limitless supply of time, I listed the deficiencies of the article so that others interested in it may also attend to the issues. That's the purpose of article talk pages - to identify issues so others may collaborate to improve the article. Frankly, your comment provides no insight toward any of the points I've noted. Mindmatrix 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference about criticism of Harper's "big recession" statement; there are other references for use of the word "recession" in various contexts by several parties, and criticisms thereof, that it merits some attention too. Mindmatrix 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist Party has a new leader?

What's this about Anna di Carlo leading the CPC (ML)? I thought Sandra Smith was still their leader? I didn't see it mentioned on their website, what's the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.104 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has been messing around with the ages of the candidates. Stephen Harper is not 107 years old and Elizabeth may is not zero years old. Quickly make changes! --Fantastic fred (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh that was the number seats their parties have. My mistake (man I feel like an idiot).--Fantastic fred (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint

This Article is pretty skewed to the Left it seems just something to think about 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't give specific suggestions for improvement, you are not likely to see action. -Rrius (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with you, the comment by Rrius is accurate. To improve the article, we need specific instances of what needs to be fixed. A point form list is sufficient, but please include text selected from the article and explain the issue. Mindmatrix 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Graph at the polling sub-article

There is currently a discussion at the opinion polling sub article about whether the polling data or graph should be at the top. Comments are welcome there. -Rrius (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Reality

Shouldn't the fact that vandals cut brake lines in Toronto count? At least 10 cases were confirmed by police and all of the recipiants had Liberal signs on their front lines. 5 October 2008 !-- Template:UnsignedIP --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.195 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that what happened in Guelph in August [3] was repeated in Toronto in October [4]. Both sprees targeted liberal voters. Nanonic (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Resignation bias

More than just NDP candidates have resigned. I added a Liberal and Tory candidate, but the section still reads biased against NDP - can someone add a bit more info about all of the resignations? IanBushfield (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Toronto Star has a nice article about this over here, with a list of all the candidates who've resigned because of something that was found on the internet. Esn (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Campaign slogans

Has anyone found out what the campaign slogans for the five major parties? I've definitively found two parties' slogans so far, and the Liberal ones are iffy:

	English slogan	French slogan
Conservative
Liberal	Richer, Fairer, Greener	Un Canada plus prospère, plus juste et plus vert
NDP	Unite for change	Le pouvoir de changer
BQ	Present for Québec!	Présent pour le Québec!
Green	Vote for tomorrow	Votez pour l'avenir

Or do we even need campaign slogans in the article? The 2006 election article has it, so I'm just asking. —kurykh 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Harpy is using "Harper Leadership '08" in English, and I've seen "Le Quebec prends des forces" in French. BTW, in correct French the Lib slogan would be Un Canada plus riche, plus juste et plus vert --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm...the Liberal's French slogan is actually Un Canada plus prospère, plus juste et plus vert per the Liberal's website (it's the name of their platform, but whatever). My bad. —kurykh 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Democrats are using "Don't let them tell you it can't be done." IanBushfield (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Globe just endorsed Harper

Hey, the Globe and Mail just endorsed Harper and the Conservateurs: [5] nat.utoronto 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Points of view

Can we please remember to be cautious about honouring WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It is very tempting to describe events and issues according to one's point of view and perhaps unavoidable to approach an issue from one's own perspective. However, it is crucial that this article be balanced and neutral. WP:NPOV reminds us to let the facts speak for themselves. Other good reads are Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples. If you find it irresistible to comment and draw conclusions from the facts, make a blog or find a discussion forum - there are plenty around - then come back and give us just the facts. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly echo that. There are a couple of you who are frankly either editing in bad faith (i.e. deliberately trying to skew the article in "your side's" favour) or are just completely out to lunch on what WP:NPOV means. There have also been some violations of WP:3RR, and I strongly suggest that the violators cool it, or they'll find themselves with some blocks. If what you're reverting is so egregious, there are enough of us watching that you won't need to hold down the fort all by yourself. If you find that nobody's helping you, you might want to consider that maybe you're the one whose editing is problematic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Strategic voting

I've added a strategic voting section, since this has been getting quite a lot of press recently. It's rushed, so I hope others will improve it. One thing to add perhaps is that I've seen it written (can't remember just where right now) that strategic voting schemes are a reaction of the public against the first-past-the-post system, and one step on the way to building support for proportional representation by making first-past-the-post irrelevant. Esn (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Results

Since it is illegal under the Elections Act to transmit results with polls partially open, I recommend that the page be fully protected from 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm Eastern tomorrow night. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and is not subject to Canadian law, their servers are in Florida. Unreferenced claims of election results should be treaded like any other unreferenced claims, and the removal of properly referenced election results information should be treated the same as any other removal of properly referenced information. Maybe we could include a warning about posting results before polls close being illegal in Canada. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but note that whereas Wikipedia is not subject to such laws, Canadian Wikipedians are subject to those laws (whether registered users or anon IPs). I also agree about adding the explanatory note in the article. (Implicit in this is that I oppose edit protection of this article.) Mindmatrix 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Wikipedia may break the law. It is illegal to publish any results to where the polls are open.[6] This was tested by a website during the Canadian federal election, 2000 and upheld by the Supreme Court.[7] DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. No one is saying that is not the law in Canada; they are saying non-Canadians are not bound by Canadian law. I'm not sure whether it could credibly be argued that the law doesn't apply because its servers on in the US. It sounds wrong to me since Wikipedia makes itself available for Canadians to view and modify. -Rrius (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes itself available to most of the world to view and modify. BLP doesn't require articles to conform to the UK's strict libel laws. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jurisdiction in the digital age is far from clear. As a result, I am less confident than you that we can be sure WP isn't subject to those laws. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On questions like these, it's best to refer to Mike Godwin, the Foundation's legal counsel, instead of trying to figure out what the law is ourselves using what little we know. —kurykh 08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

May I also say that during the 2006 election, results were posted as they were announced, in real time, from the Atlantic all the way to BC, with no apparent legal action by Elections Canada against WMF. —kurykh 08:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what can be gotten away with, we ought to respect the spirit of the law. DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Except we have a problem of not knowing what the law is, spirit or otherwise. And to interpret it ourselves would be at the height of irresponsibility. —kurykh 09:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

http://canlii.org/ca/as/2000/c9/sec329.html DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What the law is pertaining to Wikipedia, which is not connected in any physical way to Canada. The English Wikipedia has always operated under the principle that the website is subject under American and Florida law (maybe also California law now?), and nothing else. —kurykh 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:RS, we would not be able to obtain results anyway until the polls close, because there is no reliable source of Canadian election results than from Canadian sources (which the law forbids them to disclose as polls are still open).—kurykh 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, polls close at 23:00 UTC Nfld, 23:30 UTC in Atlantic zones, 01:30 UTC in Eastern, Central, and Mountain, and 02:00 UTC in Pacific. That's 3 hours between close of polls in Newfoundland and Labrador and those in B.C. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that polls in Newfoundland will release results before the polls close in BC? (I'm American, so you might need to clarify a bit. =)) —kurykh 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to make that clear by translating all the times to the same time zone, UTC, but I guess I was unsuccessful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the polls closing and the returns being released. In light of that distinction, will returns be released by the government before polls close in the West? -Rrius (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some results will be known and broadcast within Atlantic jurisdictions where polls are closed while polls in the West are still open and voting. By law, those results may not be broadcast to areas where polls are still open and are in a "black-out". DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the question of whether Canadian law applies to the WMF in this instance, I think it's clear that it doesn't - see, for example, the early release of the contents of the Auditor General's report on the Sponsorship program by an American blog. This was done, successfully, specifically to circumvent the Canadian publication ban. As a Canadian, I won't be posting any results here until the polls are closed in B.C., but I don't think there's any duty to protect the page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case anybody doesn't understand, election results can be broadcast locally as soon as the polls close — they just can't be broadcast or published to another region while the polls are still open there. The challenge, as has already been pointed out, is that because Wikipedia's servers are based in the United States and governed by American law, Wikipedia itself isn't obliged to follow the blackout law. As a result, the only thing necessarily stopping an editor in St. John's from updating this article early is their own personal choice about whether or not they respect and feel bound by the law. For what it's worth, I'm personally of two minds about page protection; I can see both sides of the argument and don't presume to know what we should do. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that, as legal responsibility for information added on Wikipedia rests primarily with the person doing the adding, your hypothetical St. John's editor would be subject to criminal prosecution. The likelihood of that actually happening is open to debate, of course, especially if the posting was done pseudonymously. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even that is a grey area, and would indeed be a more contentious court case than the above one cited above. What seems clear to me is that there is no legal reason for WP to not post results as they become available from reliable sources. Random89 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources is the key here; without the citation of a reliable source we can just revert it anyway, especially something as volatile as real-time election results. In any case, the results table isn't on the article right now anyway... —kurykh 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's permissible to add the appropriate colour row next to the winner when a media source declares them elected, but we certainly shouldn't add running ballot counts of vote totals until the counting is completely finished in a given riding. And even then, maybe we should wait until the confirmed totals come out. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be legal for a hypothetical St. John's editor to post results, but it would be legal for a hypothetical Detroit or Saint Pierre and Miquelon editor to post results reported by a reliable Canadian radio or television broadcast. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, as Canadian law doesn't apply to either France or the US. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The rule is de facto enforced by lack of reliable citations. Theoretically, you'll be right; because this website is hosted in the United States, we don't need to give a crap about Canadian law (unless the person adding the stuff is Canadian, then you're on your own). Practically, however, our policies make premature disclosure almost impossible. —kurykh 23:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of legality for Wikipedia and for posters, can a media broadcast be considered a reliable source, if it can be expected that transcripts or recordings of the broadcast will become available in time, though perhaps not immediately? As a practical matter, all the information can be verified outside Newfoundland beginning at 10 p.m., though perhaps from a different source. The basic question is whether verifiability is the same as immediate verifiability. And verifiability for everyone, everywhere?

For example, in practice, an article on Norwegian history might well refer to a book available only at libraries in Norway. Does that mean that the source is not reliable until 9 a.m. Norwegian time, when libraries open? 67.150.254.255 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless the fact/source is disputed or there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the information, I believe that it is common practice to accept offline sources in good faith. Since politics are a contentious area for some, I would assume that many editors would like to err on the side of verifiability. That being said, if you have heard in Newfoundland news broadcasts of a result, there is no reason for it to not be in the article unless someone disputes it. Random89 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Then again, being election results, disputing uncited information is almost inevitable in this situation. —kurykh 00:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Media broadcasts are considered reliable if their transcripts can be accessed. Per WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged [emphasis is original] should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." So it is not the quality of the source, but the existence and notation of the source in the article. Information not cited risk immediate removal. There is no provision for "waiting for sources", especially regarding BLPs and election results. —kurykh 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually the entire population of the Atlantic provinces will have access to this information by turning their TVs on. Vote totals are not likely to be challenged in good faith by anybody from there. Now, if our hypothetical book on Norwegian history is not available in libraries in most countries, that means the information is verifiable, but only to people in some places. I don't see why the entire population of the Atlantic provinces cannot be considered analogous here to the privileged subset of the world population that has access to rare academic books in Norwegian. 67.150.252.93 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not your original argument: your original argument was that a source is not reliable except during library hours, which is not analogous to the situation here. The situation here is that we can only notate "CBC broadcast" or something, or not add a citation at all, and that can indeed be challenged. Doubting a citation and doubting people's good faith in adding election statistics are two different things. —kurykh 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say for the sake of argument that the transcript of the broadcast will be available tomorrow morning. How is that different from a book that's only available to most people during library hours? 67.150.252.93 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As you will have noticed by now, because of the time zone issue, the broadcast release of poll results from eastern Canada overlaps the closing of polls in British Columbia by half an hour. (It used to be a wider gap, before media release was delayed to 9 pm EST.) However, since Wikipedia requires fact and not speculation, it should not be an issue at all, even for those who choose to ignore the spirit of the law. The only results available during the first half hour are entirely speculative, based on projections from initial polls. - Tenebris

Polls were closed for 3 hours in Newfoundland and 2½ hours in the Maritimes before they closed in B.C. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Polls closed and information released from Elections Canada are two different things. - Tenebris

Order of debates

I changed the order of the debates from French first to English first. English is the language spoken by the majority of Canadians and those wishing to read about the debates are more likely to expect the English section to be first. Icemuon (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will revert. The debates happened first in French and the sequence of events is important, had affects on the following, and makes little sense now when the English debate refers back to what happened in French debate and one hasn't read it yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll closing times across Canada - posting of early eastern returns while western Canada is still voting?

Has the issue of posting early returns from eastern Canada on the internet been sorted out yet?

Do polls close at same time across the country, or will it be possible for people in the west to learn of eastern results before their polls close? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.219.48 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, polls close earlier in Atlantic Canada than in Western Canada see above and Elections Canada voting hours. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So when the polls close in Ontario at 9:30 pm, it will be 6:30 pm in BC, and there will be 1/2 hour of coverage of election results available while people in BC are still voting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.219.48 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is the reason for the blackout. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any websites devoted to making early returns available as a way to defeat the blackout? I believe there always were such websites during previous elections, and even posting the results on usenet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.219.48 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such websites, though I'm sure there are some (just probably not ones based in Canada). Andrew Coyne intended to use his blog's comments section as a venue for people to post "purely hypothetical results from a purely hypothetical election in a purely hypothetical country" during the blackout period, but wound up chickening out and shutting it down for the duration. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See my note above re objective validity/speculative results during the first half hour of release. As a matter of personal experience, most individual polls don't get their numbers in until at least an hour after poll close, usually more like 1 1/2. - Tenebris

Polls were closed for 3 hours in Newfoundland and 2½ hours in the Maritimes before they closed in B.C. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Polls closed and information released from Elections Canada are two different things. - Tenebris

Popular vote result updates

Can we just have one person update the results so that we don't end up with wasted effort on the part of everyone who isn't the first to fill in the table? I'm willing to do it but am willing to give way to someone who is gung-ho. I'm just an American, after all. -Rrius (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I noted that we have not have update for some time now. Is this actually caused by more than 2 updating at the same time? I am willing to do it, but I'd rather have a canadian to do it as I am familiar with British system, not canadian. Good luck from UK w_tanoto (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the result of a decision of Template talk:Canadian federal election, 2008. -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been updating them since 7, and I'm American. —kurykh 02:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really referring to the popular vote information, which is more labour intensive. -Rrius (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote count can be added later, for practicality. —kurykh 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. What I am suggesting is that one person take responsibility for doing it so that we don't have 100 people adding data in edit windows, only to have the efforts of 99 of them wasted. -Rrius (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

not front page news?

I thought that this would be front page news on Wikipedia. Elections in other countries usually are. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe wait until the results are in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's there now. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they were waiting for the minority/majority call and for this article to be updated to reflect the news. The latter is always a requirement for ITN inclusion. -Rrius (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, if you'd like to see a certain article appear in "In the news", then please suggest them at WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 11:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

riding maps

to a foreigner, that map on the page is not at all clear Feroshki (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Something like this would be intreresting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canada2006.PNG J-C V (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Earl Andrew consistently creates maps that, while demonstrating lots of hard work, contain too much information. The result is so many colors that it's hard to tell one from another, especially if you're colorblind. I can't tell the narrow NDP wins from the narrow Liberal wins on his map. There should be a single color for each party, not four. I have tried to convince Earl Andrew to change his style, but he has refused to do so. This is one of the drawbacks of open-source projects; people do what they think is cool rather than what users want. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff that we should only have one colour per party. I'd prefer it if the main map should only covered seat distribution. If we're going to make a popular vote map, I think we should make one for each major party rather than trying to squeeze popular vote information into the seat distribution map. I don't think we should copy the style of the 2006 map. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version with one colour per party. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a great improvement, but could you use a darker shade of red? The one you use is too close to the orange for these color-challenged eyes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh!!! Can we compromise? To people with normal-coloured eyesight, my map is very clear. Maybe we can use two maps. But for now, I will revert. I think as the map maker, I should at least have the opportunity to defend it. Don't make me revoke my license! -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO the winner's vote percentage isn't particularly useful information. If we're going to use shades on the seat map, I think we should use them to indicate margin of victory rather than the vote percentage. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It shows how strong the winning party was. Margin of error would be a different map. I've based my maps on the [uselectionatlas.org] model, btw. A % margin map would be an interesting idea, but should not supersede this one. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to including a seat map in the article which shows the supporting vote percentage of the winners, however I do object to using such a map as the article's primary results map. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter Identification

This section is sourced with a link to a forum of people complaining that their voter identification card is confusing. Nowhere does it state that "hundred or thousands" were turned away from polls. If this claim is to remain, it needs proper citation. Otherwise it is speculation for the moment and needs to be removed. 70.50.68.112 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. I have replaced the forum link with a request for citation however, if it is not quickly forthcoming, a removal seems appropriate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is much more accurate to state that passports are not sufficient because they do not contain an address, and leave it at that. The "2 of the 3 pieces of information" point is highly misleading, because photo ID is not at all a requirement for voting (see Elections Canada). 76.10.173.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

I can say the identification problem was much less at this election than at the previous one, when the system was first instituted. I have been unable to find any non-opinion source which cites "thousands", even after adding together the various ridings. As to a clearer wording, try this:

Some students, homeless, and transient voters were turned away at the polls when they were unable to provide identification showing or otherwise confirming a place of residence. The legislation introduced in 2007 requires all voters to show one or two pieces of identification which confirm the voter's name and address, or to be vouched for by another voter who is able to show such identification.

(Does it count as a reference that I observed this first-hand? Is it relevant that some students would return later in the day with the required identification?)

According to the Elections Canada mailout, photo identification was not required. (ref) (Oops, sorry for the duplication, 76.10.173.75. It is automatic in me to reference, and I did not realise you already had.) For example, it was perfectly acceptable to bring two invoices from different residential utilities which bore the voter's name: which is what I did. Barring any form of identification, a person was still free to vote, provided another voter who was able to fulfill the requirements vouched for him or her. - Tenebris

I support completely replacing the section with the wording suggested above (I'm uncertain if it was Tenebris or someone else) or even eliminating the section entirely. The reference currently on the article only mentions advance polls in NB. It appears to be undue weight or even unverifiable/original research that voters were turned away on election day. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It was my wording, yes. I will leave the section in because it was wider-spread than simply NB (I updated the reference). Now that protection has been released, I am replacing what is currently there because it is still factually inaccurate: photo was not required in the acceptable documents, nor were the incidents limited to passports. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.232 (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CTV comment

Should Dion's swipe at the CTV just before his concession speech be mentioned or is it trivia?139.48.25.60 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably trivia. There are a lot of attacks and counter-swipes in any given election, and this was not a major campaign issue. - Tenebris

It is if he blames his loss on them...but I suppose one needs a source that indicates that.139.48.25.60 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To swipe is not to verifiably attribute blame. Anything we might add to that would be speculative. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.223 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn I just said that. :-) 139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Lack of sleep. :) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.223 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic recounts?

I know there were a few close results, but were there any close enough to trigger an automatic recount for the riding? This happens if the difference is at most 1/1000 of the total ballots cast in that riding. Mindmatrix 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it seems Elections Canada devotes a page to just this situation. Nothing is currently listed there. Mindmatrix 15:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic recounts also take place if the margin of victory is smaller than the number of spoiled ballots. I suspect we'll see several ridings populate that Elections Canada page in the coming days. Esquimalt - Juan De Fuca, for example. Llewdor (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or Vancouver Island North for that matter. DigitalC (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean "if the margin of victory is smaller than the number of rejected ballots." Spoiled ballots are those that the voter requests a replacement for after having made an error. Ballots that are mismarked such that the voters intentions are unclear or do not indicate a single choice are called rejected ballots and are kept in case of recounts or disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.158.139 (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An automatic recount has just been announced for Vancouver South, incumbent Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh won by only 33 votes, see the Election Canada page.Kilrogg (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular Vote Results

popular vote numbers at this site http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.86.218 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Use the old type of map

Title says all,

Also create a full results page, for every riding and show the popular vote in each province in a chart like the last election (2006), maybe ever a table showing how many candidates finished first second third and so one for the major parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.86.218 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO the old style of map is worse than the current one, which shows individual seats, and the only problem with the current map is that it uses multiple shades for each party. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the old style map. The shading is vague and misleading. For example the map shows that the Conservatives got roughly a third of the popular vote in New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Ontario, and that the Liberals got roughly a third of the popular vote in Nova Scotia, but it doesn't show that the Conservatives also got roughly a third of the popular vote in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon, that the Liberals also got roughly a third of the popular vote in New Brunswick, Nunavut and Ontario, or that the NDP got roughly a third of the popular vote in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Nunavut. I think we should drop the colour coding and add popular vote charts to the seat charts, or add seat count and popular vote bar graphs to the whitespace on the colour-coded riding map. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister - Elect?

Since the Prime Minister isn't elected, this is entirely the wrong title. A newly victorious party leader would be the Prime Minister - Designate, wouldn't he? Llewdor (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a more accurate term would be "Presumptive Prime Minister", since he's not actually designate until the Governor General asks him to form a government. In this case, of course, the question is moot, since Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister full stop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "designate" part refers to the designation by the party that appears most likely to form the government on the basis of the results of the election -- the Conservative Party won the largest number of seats, and no parties are proposing an alternative coalition government, so the Conservative Party has designated its leader, Prime Minister Steve Harper, to be PM. Of course, calling him "Prime Minister-designate Prime Minister Steve Harper" would be silly, so we can drop the first title. Ground Zero | t 12:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Prime Minister designate is appropriate enough, when the Governor General asks him to form government, he becomes full prime minister. But as Sarcasticidealist says, in this case Harper is just "still Prime Minister". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He becomes full Prime Minister when sworn in. If I'm not mistaken (and I could be), the request from the Governor General comes sometime before the swearing in (after all, otherwise when's he supposed to choose his cabinet?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for confusion, but is he still PM when Parliament are dissolved? Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The legislature is dissolved, but the government persists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is a function of the Template:Infobox Election and I went to the Template talk:Infobox Election to raise the issue and saw that it has already been mentioned but nothing done about it. Exact wording is a difficulty. The PM in this case just continues on with no change. If it had been a different result, then the PM would be shortly appointed by the GG. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper usage in a post election situation would be "Prime Minister-Designate." But because Mr. Harper is the incumbent PM, he can just be refered to as Prime Minister. There is no such thing in Canada as a "Prime Minister-Elect" because a PM is not directly elected, he/she is simply designated the leader of the ruling party, with the Governor General appointing him/her to the office. (The whole situation and terminology is different for a leader of a party changing without an election, like Kim Campbell or Paul Martin. That person would be refered to as "Prime Minister-in-waiting." Can somebody change the box that lists him as Prime Minister-Elect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.145.78 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a technical restriction which can be addressed at the relevant template talk page: Template talk:Infobox Election. —kurykh 07:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister until a new Prime Minister is sworn in. Just as in the United States, George W. Bush wasn't referred to in 2004 as the 'President Elect' because he was already President.

In Canada, while the Governor General dissolves Parliament prior to an election, all of the MPs continue to receive pay and represent their respective constituencies. Pewter Sausage (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the President's term of office ends in January following the election and he is sworn in again if re-elected. That does not happen in the parliamentary system. The PM continues to hold the confidence of the House and continues to be PM. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong - when Parliament is dissolved, there is no parliament, and no parliamentary business can be conducted. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if they keep getting paid.) Peter Grey (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi correct. When the Governor General dissolves parliament, it not longer exists, but the government does. In other words, the Prime Minister and Cabinet still retain their jobs and continue running the day-to-day operations of the country, but no longer hold a seat because the seat technically does not exist. This is so that the country is not government-less during the time of the election, in case of emergency, etc. The government remains in place until the writ is returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.59.51 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The return of the writs is irrelevant. The government remains in place until a new one is sworn in.PoliSciMaster (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet, yes; Parliament, no. Peter Grey (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally added a parameter to Infobox Election, "posttitle", that allows one to call the victor of the election whatever we like. What that is, I'm not certain. I've changed it from PM-elect to PM-designate for the time being since clearly "-elect" is incorrect. As noted above, "-designate" is not accurate either since he is still the PM following a re-election. I leave it to further discussion to change the posttitle to something better. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "Prime Minister - Presumptive" would be more appropriate. He is still and will almost defiantly continue to be PM, but we will only be sure that that will be his title for this parliament when the new House assembles and gives him confidence. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm amused by the mental image of Stephen Harper defiantly continuing to be PM, I suspect that you meant "definitely" (i.e "no doubt about it") rather than "defiantly" (i.e. "I'm doing this no matter what you think and just you even try to stop me"). Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

--User:kylewalken86 He would still be "Prime Minister Designate" after the election, even though he is already Prime Minister because he still has to have the Governor General invite him to form a government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.190 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

link and naming trouble

Guys, the address of this article has a 2006 in it! The link to the 2006 election in the sidebar links to this same page because of that. Somebody needs to change the address of this page so it is different from the one for the 2006 election.Harveybrown51 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Greens

The Green Party website is listed in the EL section for parties with seats. Since the Greens have no seats as a result of the election, should it be removed? Or is it meant for parties with seats going into the election? Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO any party with seats before or after the election should get linked. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. And another argument is that any parties with at least 2% popular vote (that is, eligible for funding from the Federal) should be included. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that argument and with their inclusion in the infobox. Esn (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Seat change

IMO the seat change data in the infobox should reflect the seat change in the actual election, since this is an article about the 2008 election. I would be okay with including the seat changes since the last general election in brackets. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a proposal for additional parameters at Template talk:Infobox Election#More parameters. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose adding back the "seats at dissolution" brackets in the main infobox. I am not sure why they were removed. The seat counts at dissolution were substantially different from the seat counts at the 2006 election, and this is certainly relevant information (see: Greens). Esn (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Results by province

IMO the "results by province" table should include an "other" row under the "independant / no affiliation" row. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just Removed

I just removed a paragraph that seems to have been mistakenly added to this page but was not about the 2008 Election (it was about a current political issue: 2008_Canadian_political_dispute).

brill (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In case a coalition government does arise, I think it's important that we should get some consensus on how to edit this page. It will be important to update this page to reflect such a change in government, but I think that in fields such as the infobox, the "PM-designate" should remain pointing to Harper, as the government did not resign in the immediate aftermath of the election. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this. Kelvinc (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just had to remove (again) that crystal ball crap about what might happen in the future as it might relate to a fact of the past. I agree with you however that we may need to somehow link to any future even that might be relevant the governance of Canada. Is there no political timeline or something that the events can be put into context from? brill (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Cadman bribe interview tape

The last paragraph in the Chuck Cadman bribe section was a single, run on sentence, extremely difficult to parse, and was missing the word 'not' from the phrase "tape was altered in any way". Additionally it was ambiguous, and could easily seem to suggest that the "unaltered tape" verdict was a win for the Conservatives, when in fact it was a blow to them (this is very clear in the referenced CBC article; "The prime minister maintains that Zytaruk doctored the tape"). I rearranged the sentence, splitting it into three, and adding "contrary to the claims by Stephen Harper that it had been altered" to the end. I think perhaps the whole paragraph does not even belong there, as it is straying from the topic of the election, and there is a section in the Chuck Cadman page for it (though I have not read that). I chose to simply clarify the statement rather than to make the decision to remove it altogether. --76.11.113.118 (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

% of seats?

Please include in the infobox the percentage of seats as well as % of votes. Korky Day (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're suggesting the addition of a separate seat percentage parameter, you should bring it up at Template talk:Infobox Election. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)