Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.





Contents

Opinion Polls: Numbers changed?

I visit this particular page on a daily basis (sometimes 2x/day) and while I'm not 100% sure, I could swear that the poll results in the opinion poll section have been changed from what they were before...am I just losing it or is there something wrong? vikramsidhu - talk 01:02, 6 January 2006(UTC)

  • new polls are added a couple of times per day. SFrank85 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates to be used for opinion polls

There seems to be something of a revert war going on with respect to opinion polls. Please use the date that the survey was conducted, not the release date, as it is what is relevant. If I were to release a poll conducted on the eve of the 1988 election, it would not be reflective of today's political situation, this is why the dates that the questions were asked is what is important. Perhaps a more rational example would be the sponship scandal this spring. Right after the most extreme revelations in the Gomery Inquiry were released, several polls came out. Some showed a steep drop in Liberal support and some showed the status quo. This is because, though polls were released on the same day, some were conducted in the days before the allegations and others in the days after. A day or two can be a lifetime in politics and it is important for people to understand what time period a poll is a snapshot of, not when the snapshot was shown to the public. - Jord 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Stategic Counsel Polls

The Strategic Counsel polls are not unique. Their Dec 6 poll is Dec 4-6. Their Dec 5 poll is Dec 3-5. Their Dec 4 poll is Dec 1-4. I'm not quite sure of the timing ... but I think if we are only going to show every third SES poll in the summary page, we should be doing the same with Strategic Counsel? Thoughts? Nfitz 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Is Martin still Prime Minister in the interim?

Paul Martin, 67, Canada's Prime Minister, and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This is Martin's picture's caption in the article - is he still, technically, Prime Minister, as Parliament has been dissolved? Erath 19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the parliament and the cabinet remain in place until they resign or are dismissed by the Governor General. A resignation would happen upon their defeat in the election and a dismissal would occur if they lost confidence and would not step aside. - Jord 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks. 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. Ground Zero | t 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a tempest in a teapot in early 1980. Clark was making certain decisions, and when criticized about it, he noted that Trudeau did the same between May 8 and July 9, 1974, when he was in a technical state of loss-of-confidence. Basically, a PM still is in authority in a care-taker role, and can be expected to undertake important housekeeping decisions. If they were extremely crucial and long-lasting, I could imagine a statesman consulting with his most likely successors to get their input, but the incumbent is ultimately the one who decides, at least unless the GG decides otherwise, at which point the GG would advise the PM, and if the PM refuses the advice, the PM traditionally must resign, and the GG would call upon someone else to form a caretaker government. GBC 22:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a good elaboration. And something to keep in mind if one ever finds oneself in that position.... Ground Zero | t 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent vs. No Affiliation

What is the difference between them? CrazyC83 01:51, 14 December 2005 (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". - Jord 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
An independent candidate is listed as such on the ballot, and has probably decided (s)he is not associated with any political party. A no-affiliation candidate has absolutely nothing underneath his/her name, and may represent a political party that does/did not meet registration requirements. From personal experience, I can speak to the latter - I was nominated by a political party that did not meet the 50-candidate rule in effect prior to 2004; all 46 of us were listed without anything beneath our names; in the common vernacular, we were "independents", but not technically correct, since we were acting in common cause the same way as the 301 Liberal candidates or the 301 NDP candidates. This part of the election act was struck down by the courts in the ruling on the Figueroa case, and now only one candidate is required for registration. Provincial election acts can differ, and in the Yukon, there are only two options: Independent, or a recognized party, the latter required to meet assorted requirements including a minimum of eight candidates; therefore, so-called independents can include people with a definite party philosophy. GBC 05:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This is true but a group of allied candidates could just as well all register as independents and a bonafide independent can run with nothing under their name. For instance, Chuck Cadman ran in the last election as "no affiliation", i.e. nothing under his name, not as an independent. - Jord 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of candidates

The number of candidates column now has two numbers in each cell: one in parentheses and one in not. There is no explanation about why there are two numbers. Enquiring minds will want to know. Ground Zero | t 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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. --Otter Escaping North 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Election night publication ban

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? - 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. 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. -- 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.) 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. - 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. - Jord 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Besides:
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 ... :)) 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). Anarchist42 16:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Coming from a political junkie living in 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? 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.  Denelson83  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. 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. 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? 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. 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. --24.222.65.32 23:41, 20 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. 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. [1] --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. Anarchist42 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Please cite this contention. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Cite? Canadian law does not apply to non-Canadians outside of Canada. 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 - Jord 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
We're treading over old ground: "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? 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? 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? 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." [2] - 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 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 ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just finished talking with the lawyers at Elections Canada. [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). 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). 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]). 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 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!). Anarchist42 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Likewise: "simply" obviates neither as relevant laws throughout this discussion. 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). 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). 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 (IMO), but I digress and these are topics for other discussions. :) 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. 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 .Anarchist42 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Great. We agree to disagree on the second point ... possibly. :) 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. 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. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Parties

I am just passing on by but before I go I'd like to say that I love the article, I like how there is talk about some parties possibily entering the election and the list of parites that are running. Usually only 4 or 5 parties are mentioned but having them all makes the article much more interesting and complete in my opinion. --ShaunMacPherson 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


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.--Jaderaid 07:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Our hard work recongized

From this week's The Hill Times:

Image:Hilltimes-dec19.PNG

- Jord 18:52, 20 December 2005 (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. -- 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. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:52, 7 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. --Omnieiunium 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Leader picture sizes

I'm curious why the leaders' pictures are sized as they are. They're almost in order by their presence in the last parliament, but by that measure Gilles Duceppe should come before Jack Layton. I was about to change them around, but I thought I'd ask first. --Llewdor 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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.--Jaderaid 20:51, 23 December 2005 (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. - Cuivienen 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Llewdor 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about ridings

I just redid the Avalon (electoral district) article and was wondering what the ±% is based on. Is it based on previous elections information or what? --Omnieiunium 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Is this true? Our table shows 307/308 for the Liberals and 305/308 for the Greens, and today was the deadline. - Cuivienen 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be, we won't know for sure until the complete list is released on January 4th, there is a little bit of a lag time between when nomination papers are filed and when they are accepted. --Cloveious 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There was some talk that the Liberals were going to come up short as many as three nominees in Quebec. We will see when Elections Canada puts out the full, final list on Jan. 5. - Jord 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Liberals got their full slate and the greens are only missing one. --Cloveious 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Greens are missing a candidate in

  • Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam
That's odd. You'd think they'd try to get a candidate in a riding where they won over 1,000 votes in 2004. Maybe the processing is just incomplete. - Cuivienen 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Greens did get a full slate. The candidate in Port Moody... [3] is Scott Froom[4]. --GrantNeufeld 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

TV blackout

Apparently, the 2006 election will bring back the TV blackout that was removed from the 2004 election. This means that poll results will not be shown on TV until polls close in a particular region. This means a region will have their news channels blacked out (CBC Newsworld, CTV Newsnet, etc.) until their poll is closed. However, this blackout seems impractical to keep results from coming in to any regions starting when the Altlantic polls close, and I am sure that websites like Wikipedia, and blogs and all sorts of other media will allow people to see the results when they start happening. Any word on what the law might do in the case of spoilers? --PsychoJason 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed further up on this page (link). Because the Wikipedia servers are not in Canada, we are legally immune to post the results here, however the consensus seems to be that ethically we should withhold posting results until after the polls have closed coast-to-coast and comply with the spirit of the law of the land. - Jord 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there was no consensus. The vast majority of polls close at the same time, with only the Maritime provinces closing early (where only a few seats change hands); only BC polls close later, 30 minutes later to be exact - which is not enough time for voters to check wikipedia, change their minds, and rush to their polling station. In other words, there is no valid reason to withold results, especially considering that they will be available on numerous other websites. Anarchist42 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The CBC, along with several other broadcasters, have appealed to the Supreme Court to repeal this restriction. JTBurman 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, however the Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear the case until after the election, so that is moot for now. - Jord 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, irrelevant. We don't follow Chinese laws and censor free speech articles do we? 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 Elections Canada site the polls close in BC three hours later than in Newfoundland. - Jord 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of 30 minutes, as I said, between B.C. and most of Canada. 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 - 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?  Denelson83  17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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.--24.222.65.32 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. --24.222.65.32 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How many seats close at what times

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

0:00 5
0:30 27
2:30 239
3:00 37
Total 308

Photos!

Can someone take some photos of election signs and other election related pictures? That would be great. Unfortunately, my digital camera has connection problems with my computer. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can get you some pictures from around Calgary, tommrow and Edmonton if you wait a week. --Cloveious 04:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a few pictures of various signs around my ridings, since I am helping out with the campaign. However, I only have one parties signs (liberals) but the Tories, Greens, and NDP are easy to get.--Omnieiunium 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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. - Lucky13pjn 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So, where are they? I have a Stephen Harper one that is for windows. WestJet

Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006

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

This is because it got moved off of the main page and has largely been forgotten. I would suggest the pre-campaign stuff be kept there (and the article renamed to reflect that) and the timeline from Nov. 28 on ward be developed and included on the main page. - Jord 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What Happens in a tie

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 Priester 17:14, 13 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 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 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. - Jord 17:43, 13 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. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If the NDP and Liberals combined had a majoirty of seats, is it likely we ould have coalition government? Tompw 12:30, 15 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. 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. :-( Ground Zero | t 15:25, 15 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" - Jord 15:27, 15 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.--68.73.55.59 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Unionist Government of Robert L.Borden was in office during World War I NOT World War II. GoodDay 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Official Opposition has been in all cases the non-gov. party with the most seats. However, it is the Speaker of the House who recognize the party to form the OO.

Why is it that the Conservatives are said to be forming the new, minority government while the parliament has actually centre/centre-left majority? Conservatives have 124 seats, while Liberals plus NDP sum up 132, not to mention the fact that Quebec Bloc is rather centre-left than right wing? It looks rather peculiar for me, if a rightist government is formed, while 3 centre-left parties have actually majority of MPs. How is it possible for the minority gov to rule in such a peculiar situation?. Constanz - Talk 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

issues

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? Circeus 18:04, 14 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 federal election page.--Omnieiunium 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I put a short blurb there anyway, if only to fill the space.Circeus

Humour Links?

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

Party slogans?

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

I'd say no, but I don't feel too strongly about it. It's trivia, but not particularly informative. --Otter Escaping North 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it gives the flavour of the campaign. I'd include them. Ground Zero | t 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

If anyone cares, the slogans are as follows

Liberals - Choose your Canada
  • This is the same slogan they used in 2004? - 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? 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 website. Ground Zero | t 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. 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

Snickerdo 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, alternatively, these can be included in the infoboxes for each federal party? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Bloc's English abstract, "Thankfully, here it's the Bloc", is the correct English translation of the pary's slogan. Ground Zero | t 21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements

Should we create a new section or page on newspaper endorsements? I thought about it when looking at past elections elsewhere and saw this page: Newspaper endorsements in the U.S. presidential election, 2004 CrazyC83 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I would propose, as a start,
  1. removing endorsements of the thousnads of individuals candidates, leaving only endorsements of the parties; and
  2. 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).

Ground Zero | t 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the possibly cumbersome endorsement list in the main article, and the recently created unique article for newspaper endorsements, I wonder: should we open up a single, generic 'endorsements' article that includes all of them? If so, I propose moving or entitling such an article Endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006, including/categorising endorsements by organisations, newspapers, et al, but/or by party. This will also enable us to prune the main election article and try to keep it concise yet consolidated ... ha! Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You have my vote, Anthony. Ground Zero | t 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. 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. :) 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. 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. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

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

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.

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

Spoiler warning: Election results follow. Do not read this section if you do not want to know who has won eastern ridings.

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

Ray Oiler 06:27, 18 January 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. --Llewdor 18:33, 19 January 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.
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.
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., read about what Wikipedia is/not. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Results on election night

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. 206.47.141.21 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Mav-TGIF 00:14, 19 January 2006

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.
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.
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. -- Ray Oiler 10:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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? 206.47.141.21 13:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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 consensus above to refrain.
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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
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. -- Ray Oiler 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
Wikipedians added info on the Gomery commission during the publication ban.
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. -- 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. 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.
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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:32, 20 January 2006 (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).

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 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).

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. -- LinuxDude 08:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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? Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this is Template:ElectionsResultsCA, which is being edited by the powers of the wiki... Physchim62 (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd support that ...
Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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). Ikh 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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! 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... 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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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.--24.222.65.32 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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. -- 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." 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? Physchim62 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong on WP:VPP. The BC polls close at 10 EST.
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. -- Ray Oiler 14:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
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. Nfitz 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the last sentence is neutral enough. If 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. 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. Nfitz 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC

It was my understanding that Wikipedia isn't from Canada or a news publisher, and as such, Canadian election laws don't really apply. Or is there something I'm missing? I'd like to see up to the minute results as soon as someone knows them, if at all possible. --72.29.232.74 14:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See above and below; as well Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, etc. If you are compelled to see up-to-the-minute results, go to the Elections Canada website or tune in to other media. As well, there may be personal/other websites that choose to post this information prematurely, improperly, and in possible contravention of law; seek them out ... Wikipedia isn't one of them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The is a blackout until 10PM EST, so electionscanada.ca is of no help. What country is Wikipedia based in? If anyone believes that a foreign publisher can get charged with Canadian election act violations, then they are quite paranoid, as that would be impossible. As well, Wikipedia pages frequently have up to the minute updates when they pertain to an unfolding current event, and this has always been quite acceptable.--72.29.232.74 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that any foreigners would be charged. Nfitz 15:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning template

I've nominated that ridiculous disclaimer template for deletion as a blatant violation of WP:NLT. Precedent makes it clear that US courts will not enforce foreign judgments that violate core First Amendment principles in the US. See [5] for specific details (this one involving British and Indian libel cases). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your nomination and interjection obviates concerns and discussions of propriety already discussed by a number of Wikipedians here. Second, your "ridiculous" assertion demonstrates your point of view and disdain and is not necessarily authoritative: the notice merely cautions Canadians who may post results in contravention of electoral law from doing so by citing the relevant section of the Canada Elections Act, which has been prosecuted in the past. Lastly, the template (as you can see above) is still subject to editing and hasn't been finalised yet. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Nfitz 05:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

SFrank85 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Proposed election results template

Election This article contains information about the current Canadian election. Information may change frequently.
It is likely to contain information that is speculative in nature. Purported electoral results added before 03:00 (UTC) 2006-01-24 will be unofficial estimates — which should be sourced — and unverifiable through Elections Canada. Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in all electoral districts.		 Canada

This template is currently up for deletion here and is also discussed on the Village Pump. Physchim62 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the 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 legal threat and simply note the law that results in the unverifiability. 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. 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! 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 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 verifiable until all polls have closed ... after which it's a matter for Elections Canada to verify polling results and enabling us to do as we'd normally do. 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? 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 cite any source for information and possibly substantiate it, including a media source, but is it 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 is neither a venue for unregulated free speech nor a news service. I hope this helps. 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.) 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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it also against the Elections Act in Canada? SFrank85 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

See above. 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. :-) TheProject 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As above; this is not clear-cut. 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. TheProject 04:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's here, and how is Mr. Bowman's blog authoritative? This is part-and-parcel of the issue with citing sources and verifying them – it's murky. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why I said for what it's worth. Does he know something we don't, or is that just his opinion? TheProject 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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? TheProject 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Ray Oiler 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good point.SFrank85 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the template to address this. 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—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?—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. Physchim62 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, there is lots of information on Wikipedia that can only be confirmed through offline sources. I would hate to think that any article that relies on book as its sources would be considered more "circumspect" than an article that relies on websites. -- Ray Oiler 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
True: if electoral results are published in a book, this would not be an issue here per se ... unless the information was incorrect or otherwise dubious, in which case the original sources should prevail.
Just as well here. With the plethora of information online and elsewhere, good and bad, who's to say what should stay and what should go? That's why citing reliable sources, as per other benchmarks for information in Wp, is important. If results stem from CP and are legitimate, then links to that information are sufficient without recapitulating it. Wp isn't a news service: there's time to embolden the article with authentic and indisputable sources/information that can be verified as the election unfolds. And flip your rationale on its head: given examples of the mass media reporting or declaring information prematurely or inaccurately – take the US presidential election of 2000 – the mass media is not necessarily authoritative, either. While I'll be tuned in to various TV/radio stations on election night, I'll also be glued to EC online and here.
In the interim, for these purposes – which concerns quantifiable federal election results administered by a specific federal agency – that can only be legitimately said of results directly from the source. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all unofficial results are just that -- unofficial. But that's a separate issue from the gag law.
Here is my suggested wording for the template:
"This article contains information about the current Canadian election.
"The results listed below may be unofficial. Editors should be sure to cite the source of any results listed on the page.
"Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits online publication of election results before the close of polling stations in British Columbia at 7 PST (0300 UTC). As a result, results may not be verifiable from online sources before that time." -- Ray Oiler 03:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Coming from TfD, I have been bold and reworded in this sense, which answers some of the concerns there. This is, of course, only a suggestion, not a claim of consensus. Septentrionalis 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation

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

  • There's enough Wikipedians that are upset that we are talking about simply putting a warning message on (see the deletion discussion for the warning template) that there's no way that they are going to go for having a lock on the article ... besides, what are you going to do, lock the articles for every riding in the Atlantic time zone? Nfitz 08:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Requests for page protection should go to WP:RFP; they are usually only granted in the case of edit warring, although policy is leaning more and more towards granting requests. Obviously I cannot use my superpowers to do this, but editors who are around tonight may wish to consider it. WP:V obviously applies to edits to this page: unsourced results can and should be deleted, and suspected hoaxes should be reported to WP:AN/I. Physchim62 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Given our extensive discussions, I support Ps62, et al. and the inclusion of the template atop relevant pages until the time specified – 03:00 UTC tomorrow. Thus, I think page protection at this point is premature unless attempts to edit the article are clearly combative or improper in nature. I'd also support retaining the template beyond this timeframe, though in a modified version (perhaps as RO has indicated above); however, as a consensus at its TfD currently supports retention of the template in its current form, there's no need to change it unless a groundswell of editors support this. Moreover, attempts to revert its placement, which has already occurred, should continue to be rectified promptly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Why is warning posted already?

I thought this was not going to go up until the polls had closed in Newfounland, at 7 PM Eastern (8 pm Atlantic). Nfitz 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is problematic. It still enables Wikipedians to edit as they normally would (have you been editing differently?), yet serve as a perfunctory reminder to those who may not (given edits/reverts as of late). Remember, it is ad hoc. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is highly problematic it. We all (or at least most of us, including the person who stuck it up last night) said that the template wouldn't appear until when the polls close. Now it appears when the polls open? We can't have a big huge discussion about this, and then do something else! Nfitz 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree (and perhaps this should've been discussed more); I merely point out that the template does not prohibit usual editing of the article and will only be in place for a short period of time anyway. Moreover, the election is no longer a future/upcoming election (as the "future template" indicates): it's now underway! I do not support revert wars, but this is not what I envisioned. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's my fault. I didn't think the timing of placing the template was the point at issue, more the question of whether there should be any mention at all of section 329, and if so what the wording should be. Hence when I got a message asking for an opinion about when the template should be removed, I checked the wording of {{future election}} and felt that {{ElectionResultsCA}} fitted better for polling day. I apologize to those who feel I jumped the gun against consensus, that wasn't my intention. However I do feel that there is consensus both here and on TfD that the template should be used at least between 00:00 and 03:00 UTC: the three-revert rule applies, as one editor has already found out. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of early results

I'm getting hints from reading stuff, that there is an intention of people to remove results that come in before 10 pm Eastern. Clearly any pre 7-pm Eastern results are bogus, as no-one will have been able to pop the seal on an election box until the poll closes. But I'm quite concerned that people will try and remove legitimate results between 7 pm Eastern and 10 pm Eastern. Can we clarify what the policy is on this now, so we don't get into a revert war at 7:30 Eastern? Nfitz 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is already clear regarding timing, and that should guide our actions. And, as above, if any Wikipedian cannot verify information and it isn't directly cited, it should be nixed. Especially information posted by anon IPs. Between 7 and 10 (to 3), I propose the following: if results are posted, regardless of whether they conform to the above, means be found to provide external links to that information (i.e., outside of Wp) instead ... in an appropriate section at the bottom of the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am also worried of a possible revert war. It has already begun too if we take a look at the page's history in the past few hours. Sad. As for me, I am against revert wars so I will not revert the edits of people who post results before 10:00 PM. 206.47.141.21 15:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I do agree, but editing Wp – and repeatedly – is reality. I share your disdain for 'revert wars,' but if others decide to post information contrary to all discussions above (and especially if it's posted from anon IPs), then there may be no recourse. As long as Wikipedians do not violate 3RR, there shouldn't be a problem. As well, note that we're talking about actions over a very short timeframe. Given that Wp is not a news service, blog, or vehicle for unregulated free speech, I fail to understand why there is such a rush to post results that may be dubious. Wikipedians should exercise discretion (anyway) before adding said information. And remember: there's plenty of time to post results and give them the encyclopedic treatment they deserve. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I took our discussions above to mean that we should give fair warning to Canadians. I also took it that the removal of results information could also not occur, as that would be contrary to several Wikipedia policies. When (and if) we get to that point, I ask you not to remove result information that appears to be genuine, despite the obvious lack of a Internet reference. Nfitz 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You take it correctly, but with qualification. Everyone must exercise diligence when adding information to this article, properly sourcing (whatever it is) and verifying it. Discuss here beforehand. If posted information is unaccompanied by information that other information in Wp should, in accordance with Wp policies and procedures and discussions therein, our actions are clear. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this gets down to what is an adequate source. If someone puts a footnote saying that this was reported by NTV in Newfoundland then this should be adequate. Hmm, I get that channel in Toronto ... I wonder if they will be blacked out ... ah yes, Rogers channel 141 - programme guide says "Federal Election Blackouts in Effect from 7 pm to 9:30 pm EST Nfitz 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've already indicated my position above: regarding quantifiable election results, there's no reason to consider any source apart from Elections Canada to be truly authoritative. This even applies to results after 03:00.
That being said, however, secondary Canadian media sources would be valid if they are properly sourced and can be verified; however, note blackout times. I'd seriously challenge information from U.S. media sources/editors, since it's arguable that such information was obtained or should've been either legitimately or without having passed through Canada (or Elections Canada) first. This is a Canadian federal election, after all. And information from anonymous IPs should be dealt with swiftly (scrutinised) ... no matter how valid those contributions appear to be. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Any US-based news will likely have been obtained without going through Elections Canada. Any news will likely have to pass through Elections Canada or the Canadian media, and they won't be talking. --Deathphoenix 17:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that even the Canadian networks do not get their results from Elections Canada, they get them from the candidates in the ridings. You'll see this in the evening when the networks have more up-to-date results than Elections Canada does. This happens because the scrutineers for each candidate call their campaign offices with the results as soon as the counting is completed while the returning officer first completes the process of closing the poll before phoning in the results to the riding's returning officer who in turn phones the results to Elections Canada. Local stations in the Atlantic will begin broadcasting the results to Atlantic Canadians before the polls have closed in the rest of the country, it will not be difficult for U.S. sources to get these results, they will simply have to watch Canadian networks from the east coast which will not be blacked out on U.S. signal providers, moreover Reuters and other reporters on the ground in Canada will likely put results on the international wire before the blackout ends. - Jord 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This adds credence to my position regarding the authenticity of results, or perhaps apparent lack thereof, from sources other than Elections Canada. Who's to say that such reporting from the media, even double-talk, is at all verifiable? Remember the 2000 US presidential election?
Given the flurry of activity during the election, the populace may or may not trust broadcast media as a reliable source ... but it isn't the sole one, nor is it the primary one. And as an encyclopedia, should we? Hence the term: "trust, but verify." And I contend that results shouldn't be posted without scrutinising them intently, since we can do so properly when authoritative results are available later on. Anything else just reduces Wp to another blog-like web portal through which anyone can post information online by proxy. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I wasn't suggesting we should post such results, I was merely trying to correct factual inaccuracies in previous statements. - Jord 18:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Understood! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, in either case, we should take any results before the end of the blackout with a huge grain of salt. --Deathphoenix 18:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, everyone should remember WP:FAITH: the issue as to whether sourced elections results should or should not appear between 19:00 EST and 22:00 EST is one of editorial judgement, and disputes about editorial judgement are not so rare on WP. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I feel that an encyclopedia really ought to be able to get election results correct, and so WP:V ought to be applied more stringently than to other articles. But to reply to E.P.A., the CBC would usually be considered an acceptable source on WP, and I think we can trust them until Elections Canada post their preliminary results. Any suspicions of hoaxing should be taken to WP:AN/I. Physchim62 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Pc62! Also, note above that the CBC conforms at least with what I think should be considered legit ... as long as it's properly sourced and can be verified by others. :) As you, given the timeframe, I just tend to defer more to taking time to verify through other reputable means too ... like newspapers and periodicals (as do many other Cdns., if memory serves). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:AN/I, this page has already made it there, before the polls even close! As for deferring to Elections Canada, Wikipedia is not Utopia... Physchim62 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It made it there because you improperly blocked a user, who had only done 2 reverts. Not sure what that says! Nfitz 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I know! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of scrutinizing any results that trickle out early. Do bear in mind, however, that information could concievably be passed over the border into the US for a large number of ridings and then put online (where Elections Canada has no jurisdiction, insofar as I know) from Maritime Canadian sources as well as sources in Quebec and Ontario. Grain-of-salt approach is good, but bear in mind that many sources will be TV rather than online, and thus not particularly linkable unless not Canadian-based, since Elections Canada is sitting on online information until 10 PM EST. One possibility, though, is that BBC will be putting up some form of results early...they seemed to hint at this in a story today.
That's possible. The most likely possibility is that Wikipedian in the Maritimes or Newfoundland and Labrador will enter information based on what they can see on their local TV stations (CTV, ASN, NTV, and CBC). While that might not be legal based on the current Canadian law, we can't or shouldn't remove it from Wikipedia if it seems reasonable, and has some kind of source reference. Nfitz 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
What a tangled web we weave!? :) We'll take 'em as they come. Television reports are difficult to cite (at least not until they can be discretely referenced and verified, often impossible until they are archived), so this will likely be editorial licence. (That is, for these purposes: they're more grain-of-salt.) And if they are questionable, there's nothing which prevents their inclusion later, when they can be properly sourced and verified. There's no rush, and this isn't a news report. Remember: the burden in Wp is on the contributor to provide complete source information in the first place, not for us to scrutinise the information per se without it or if it's lacking (though of course that's necessary with anything included here).
In any event, the template will be placed this evening before 7 PM EST: Wikipedians should act accordingly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what current practice is, but I remember in 1993 or 1997 that there were some 10 to 20 extra phones hooked up at the Elections Canada returning office in Whitehorse for election day, so I saw from work orders at the phone company where I work. On visiting the returning office on election day, I saw several people using these phones, while watching the tally boards that the returning officer was using to track each polling division.

It was therefore evident what was going on here. CBC, CTV, Global, the radio news services and the print and newswire services were all stationing "stringers" at each of the returning offices across Canada to use these phones to stay in touch with their main newsrooms (or a suitable regional center) to pass along results as they're added to the tally boards. Thus, the news services could relay the results as the returning office staff marked them onto the boards, and the news services came up with the results and had their computers generate the various stats: which party led a riding, the total leading/elected for each (major) party and for "other", and also track the popular vote change.

At some point, the "decision desk" at a news service decides whether there are enough large polls reported in a riding to feel safe in declaring a particular party has won it. The decision desk also later decides if the leading/elected is stable enough to suggest a particular party will form a minority government, or even a majority.

I don't know if much has changed since 1993, but it seemed orderly enough to me that the news services would still use stringers keeping an open phone line from each returning office.

The only thing that could beat that is if scrutineers, who are watching the count, yank out the cell phone and call their candidates once they've been dismissed by the poll clerk and allowed to leave the polling station. Federal law prohibits use of any communications device inside the polling station, and I believe they have to sign off on the results as they've been counted before they leave. The scrutineers, by the way, are appointed by a candidate to represent that candidate at a poll, so typically, you'll see three or four scrutineers at each poll, each one representing a major party. I don't know how well smaller parties do at getting people to do this function, particularly since there can be dozens, even hundreds, of polls in just one electoral district. The scrutineers voice objections or support as to the clarity of how a ballot is marked, but the poll clerk is the one who decides on election night. If its a close race, ballots which the poll clerk left uncounted are examined in a judicial recount, which sometimes happens automatically, and at other times can be applied for.

GBC 01:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted legal warning

I reverted the following legal warning, made in bold italics, at the very top of the article after the info boxes:

Note: It is a crime under Article 329 of the Elections Act to report any results to a location where the polls have not closed. Results may only be legally reported after 11:30 pm Newfoundland Time, 11:00 pm Atlantic Time, 10:00 pm Eastern Time, 9:00 pm Central Time, 8:00 pm Mountain Time, 7:00 pm Pacific Time.

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the very top of the article. If there is a section on media reporting of election results, that's fine. Otherwise, this sort of information isn't useful to the article. --Deathphoenix 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The warning would be better placed above the "results" table further down in the article. The warning is a useful courtesy to Canadian Wikipedians would could face charges under Canadian law for posting results early. If people really object to it it being in the article, it could be added as a note so that only people editing the article would see it, i.e., using <!-- and -->. Ground Zero | t 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's inappropriate atop the article – remember that the template will be placed atop the article this evening before 7 EST. However, the information might be useful in some way: perhaps it's appropriate to include it later in this article (with polling times?) and or even on the talk page for the impending template (not in the template itself)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone else already placed a similiar warning at the end of the Election day section ... which seemed more appropriate there, and more NPOV. Don't see that anything else is needed until the other template gets restored between 6 and 7 pm. Nfitz 21:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the warning is appropriate in the Election day section. --Deathphoenix 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, the reason that WP:NLT exists isn't to restrict statements of law. It's to prevent people from making legal threats which would allow them to influence the content of the encyclopedia. The kind of warning that appears above is not a legal threat. First of all, a legal threat would need to come from the appropriate Canadian agency which is empowered to take legal action on this matter. Secondly, it is not a threat at all, any more than: 'Making statements which deny the holocaust are illegal in many jurisdictions' is. The threat would be 'Persons making statements which deny the holocaust will be actively investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Finally, it is not only against the law for Canadian wikipedians, but rather it is a criminal offence under Canadian law. There is no guarantee that Canada would not pursue legal remedy even in other countries. -- AC


Someone screwed up. Its currently 6:42 PST, the polls haven't closed yet (they close at 7:00pm) and results are currently shown in the article. 24.84.4.229 02:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning template placed, 6:30 Eastern

As discussed above, I have restored the template I removed this morning. Nfitz 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Succesful speedy deletion of the POV template

My faith in Wikipedia has been revived! That horrible template is now gone. It just goes to show that the system works. For what it's worth, I'm very thankful to all who fought again its removal. It was the right thing to do! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.44.251.2 (talk • contribs) .

major vandalism

as I read this someone as edited the results to say 120 grits elected, 15 greens, etc.

As if. Mre5765 02:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanadian_federal_election%2C_2006_Archive_2_13a6.html"