Talk:British Columbia general election, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Governments of Canada
This article is part of the Governments of Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
British Columbia
British Columbia Portal
This article is part of the British Columbia WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

/Archive1

Contents

[edit] election guidelines apply

Please follow Wikipedia:election guidelines and best practices, and update that page if necessary. It mostly lists good examples. If this page is a good example of anything, then, make sure it is linked.

[edit] DRBC / Reform BC

The following news release can be (as of January 19, 2005) found on the [www.reformbc.net Reform BC front page]:

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vancouver, BC, January 17, 2005

BC HAS A NEW POLITICAL PARTY

Tom Morino, Leader Democratic Reform BC; and Simon Moses, Leader All Nations Party of BC yesterday announced at a founding convention in White Rock that they have reached an agreement to unite the two parties under the name Democratic Reform British Columbia.

Shirley Abraham, President Reform BC; stepped down as party president, along with other board members, to join Democratic Reform British Columbia and Ron Gamble was elected president to replace her. Gerry Rehwald and Walter Hayden will remain on the Reform BC board. Gamble stated that Reform BC remains as a registered political party.

- 30 –

For further information please call: Reform BC President: Ron Gamble (604) 980-7779

I e-mailed Mr. Gamble as I was unclear as to what was going on exactly... here is the email back and forth:

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:48:28 -0800 From: Ron Gamble <rongamble@shaw.ca> To: Jordan O Brien <jord@jord.ca> Subject: RE: From www.reformbc.net All headers

Mr. O Brian,

Four members of our board who were working to have the Democratic Party and All Nations Party come over to Reform BC did not materialize. Instead the Democratic Party, through Elections BC changed their name to Democratic Reform BC. The result of that had a profound effect in that Reform BC would not have been able to change its name to Democratic Reform BC as there was one already registered.

Although section 5.1 and 5.2, Article 2 and 3 are unalterable, the party name was not and could have been changed but no resolution was brought forward to our Annual General Meeting to do so.

Our bylaws do not permit membership in two provincial parties. As a result the four board members, who supported and joined the new party, could no longer belong to Reform BC. As to the rest of the Members of Reform BC it will be up to them to decide what party they want to join or support.

Reform BC at this moment is not ready, nor may be ready, to run candidates in this coming provincial election.

Original Message-----

From: Jordan O Brien [1] Sent: January 19, 2005 10:24 AM To: rongamble@shaw.ca Subject: From www.reformbc.net

Mr. Gamble:

I have a question about the current status of Reform BC.

>From what I have pieced together of have assumed the following:

At Reform's Jan. 15, 2005 AGM a vote was held to disband the party and join the new DRBC but this vote did not pass. As a result most of the executive left the party to join DRBC. Please let me know if that is correct.

What is very unclear, though, is do you and the new leadership of Reform BC intend to run candidates in the 2005 election? I am assuming by the positive news release re: DRBC on the Reform website that though a majority of Reform BC members support the DRBC - including yourself and the executive they elected Jan. 15 - there was not the 75% support required to amend the constitution?

Alternatively, I wonder if, perhaps, someone ruled that due to section 5.1 and 5.2 of your constitution stating that Sections 2 and 3 are unalterable it was ruled that, legally, Reform BC could not disband?

Could you please help me to shed some light on the above? Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks, Jordan O'Brien

Just FYI, I think that clarifies at least what happened w.r.t. Reform BC, they thought they were going to be taking the lead on it and when they didn't they took their toys and went home. - Jord 21:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Party

Why has the BC Conservative Party been moved to minor parties from the "also rans" area? There are other parties still in existence that ran more candidates in 2001 and the Conservatives are not registering in any polls. Please advise. - Jord 19:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd picked a 3% cutoff between minor parties and also-rans, which demarcates a pretty substantial gap between Marijuana and, uh, the People's Front, I think, which was sub-0.5%. I'll move them back for the time being. -The Tom 20:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Nettleton

Nettleton is listed as running in a different riding that the one he currently represents. Was this an error? I can't find any reference to him planning to run in a different riding but find two about him reoffering in his current riding (they are quite dated though). Could someone clarify? - Jord 18:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul Willcocks reported it a few weeks ago. -The Tom 20:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, good eye. I managed to confirm with a better source, I got the following off of the CP wire.

The Canadian Press Western News, Friday, January 21, 2005 Former Liberal Nettleton switches ridings to take on deputy premier

The Canadian Press

PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. (CP) - Former B.C. Liberal MLA Paul Nettleton says he's switching to a neighbouring riding so he can take on the deputy premier.

Nettleton, who was thrown out of the Liberal caucus after he accused his government of attempting to privatize B.C. Hydro, told the Prince George Citizen on Thursday he will run in Prince George-Mount Robson in the May 17 provincial election because he believes Deputy Premier Shirley Bond and the Liberals are ripe for the picking.

"I do think she is vulnerable," Nettleton said. "There will certainly be some high-profile losses for the Liberals in May, and one of them is Shirley Bond, I believe."

Nettleton said he decided to make the switch partially because he was told an internal B.C. Liberal Party poll placed him ahead of incumbents Bond and Prince George North MLA Pat Bell in overall local popularity.

He did not have a copy of the poll.

He said he is also running in Prince George-Mount Robson because his family moved to a home in the riding this past summer, so that is where he will be on the ballot.

Bond was recently named health minister.

Nettleton said he bears no ill will with Bond and his relationship with her remains "cordial."

Nettleton's decision leaves his current riding, Prince George-Omineca, wide open for a right-left battle between the Liberals and the NDP.

- Jord 21:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links to candidate websites

While helping over at Alberta general election, 2004, we seemed to have an unwritten policy of not including external links to candidates within the candidates' table. I never removed them myself but I noticed them all vanishing shortly after they appeared and I could sympathize with both sides of the argument. No one ever complained so I assumed an unwritten consensus had developed ;) I am wondering what our stand should be on this as a link has appeared. -- Jord 15:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was simply following the Alberta precedent myself of non-wikilinking anyone who wasn't an incumbent, although a few "star candidates" were arbitarily redlinked in the hope that there may be an article on them someday. I can't recall external links ever appearing on the federal list at all. Like you say, there are two sides to the issue—personally, I'm not one of those people who compulsively wishes all biographical substubs to be deleted, so the abstract hope that every candidate might one day have an article make me lean towards wikilinking everyone. If there's a link to be shared, the candidate can get a quick and dirty substub with the link on that page. -The Tom 17:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you follow what I was getting at. I am not talking about the candidate names being wikilinked (I think they should be because I feel that wikipedia should aim to contain limitless knowledge, not just standard encyclopedic knowledge) I've conceeded with the consensus in Alberta that only incumbents and notables ought to be linked. I was referring to whether or not external links to campaign websites should be included ... see Robert Broughton in the eastern suburbs. - Jord 18:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think external candidate sites should be linked at all on this page. If the candidate has a wikipage, then a link in the External Links section on that page would be alright. I am going to delete any external candidate sites I see on this page. Feel free to revert if you disagree. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DRBC/MDM

Just for clarification's sake on the alphabet soup that ultimately composed DRBC: The Moderate Democratic Movement was an element of the British Columbia Democratic Coalition and it thus ceased to exist upon the coalition's merger into DRBC (along with the All Nations Party and bits of Reform BC). For tax purposes DRBC is seen by Elections BC as a successor party to just Morino's original party, BCDA. The other parties that folded into it along the way (including MDM and ANP) continue to exist on the register for legal purposes but are effectively dead. -The Tom 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, as you are a very avid editor of this page, I assumed that you were in agreement with the timeline that I pasted from here ;) I stand corrected. - Jord 16:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How the New One Works

Incumbents will be italicized, Leaders or Ministers will be bolded and if incumbent and running again italicized.

Normally, Jack Cox, when you are going to change something like that you should reach concensus first on this page before making the change. Especially, something such as the candidates tables whose format has long since been established on all Canadian elections pages. Also, you should sign your name to your comments on this page which you can do easily by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. - Jord 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fix Up

The Thing just went cooky, needs a fix Jack Cox 01:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific than "The Thing" and "went cooky"? -- Jord 14:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which is #3 DRBC or Green

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

I would request you move the greens back to #3 sure the DRBC may have one MLA but the Greens are ahead of them in the polls and they seem like the 3rd party. Jack Cox 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is my opinion as well, I did not move them ;) - Jord 17:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am going to move Green Party back to 3rd position, because they have a full slate of candidates, whereas the Democratic Reform Party does not. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, 135.214.66.241 06:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bearcat

I DONT CARE WHAT HE WANTS WITH PAGE LINKAGES, THE THING LOOKS UGLY PLAIN! I will do it again and again if I have too Jack Cox 20:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jack
a) please calm down
b) Wikipedia operates by consensus and that is a consensus that has been reached throughout Canadian election pages
- Jord 03:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Results table

I see someone has moved the results table to above the candidates table. In previous elections we have kept the results table at the bottom of the article until after the voting takes place, at which time it is moved to the top of the article immediately below the summary. If there is no objection, I will move it back to the bottom of the article. - Jord 00:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please document this practice as standard for other Wikipedia:elections
Hey Jord, mea culpa. I recall it being above the candidate list on the 2004 federal page so I can't say I'm aware of the precedent you refer to, but if it's really bothering you go right ahead and move it back. -The Tom 02:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't quite involved then. We had decided to do so during Alberta general election, 2004 which is where we also decided not to link candidates who were not "notable" enough for an article. I don't really care one way or the other, as I recall, the logic was simply that it was too cluttery to have an empty, and therefore meaningless, table above the more useful candidates table when no results were in. - Jord 16:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Fringe parties"

That sounds really, really, POV to me :| Any other ideas? - Jord 14:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much as certain parties within the category have occasionally gotten riled about the tag (usually with the argument, "well, we're not fringe, but *point* those guys are"), it is the only name in general usage, with an especial preponderence of hits in Canada. Just because it can be construed by some as an epithet doesn't neccessarily make it POV -The Tom 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fringe is defined as "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views" which I don't think is a fair way to characterize the parties. I don't disagree with the way you have reorganized the party breakdown, but I don't think the label "fringe" is appropriate for a neutral, encyclopedic work. - Jord 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Other parties contesting this election" which seems consistant with the "Other parties that may contest this election" category below it. I hope that is ok. - Jord 16:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

Question:

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


[edit] Joe Pal

Anyone know what the deal is with Joe Pal from Surrey Whalley? he is not listed as anything in the official elections BC lists, not even Independent. Travis May 3rd. 2005

  • I'd put in "No affiliation". That designation appears on other Canadian election charts, usually separate from "Independent", although there really isn't any distinction between the two terms, IMHO. Ground Zero 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks I will do that. Travis May 3rd. 2005 21:49 (UTC)

[edit] Indpendents / Non affiliated candidates

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

[edit] Em dash

The ridings ought to have Em dashes instead of hyphens. see: Electoral district (Canada). DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That might be for Canadian ridings, but for BC ridings? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The em-dash federally has to do with the different use of the hyphen in French grammar (hyphens connect compound nouns there, so in order to keep something like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot straight the em-dash has to be brought into play). Elections BC seems to use plain-vanilla hyphens [2]. -The Tom 16:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the em dashes are a federal thing not a Canadian-wide thing. Even New Brunswick, which is bilingual, uses regular dashes creating rather confusing ridings such as Dalhousie-Resitigouche-est - Jord 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It can indeed make riding names confusing. IMO, hyphens should be used as part of a name not in connecting names but if this is the consensus and Elections BC uses them, I'll go along too. Thanks for the input. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage

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

[edit] Different kinds of Majority.

In the last parliamentary elections in BC the result was 77-2, an absurdly lopsided result.

The 2005 elections are described as "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a smaller majority."

Could this be rephrased to something like "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a lopsided 77-2 majority reduced to a comfortable 50-37 (or whatever) majority"?

Tabletop 09:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 77-2 isn't something that's going to come again, but words like 'lopsided' and 'comfortable' seem to violate NPOV (indeed, I don't find 46-33 to be 'comfortable'). The current wording is perfectly fine and accurate.

Maybe there needs to be an article on the Descriptions for Size of Majority to thrash this one out. To fail to mention 77-2 is understatement, not NPOV, while 46-33 is less than an overwhealming victory, closer to a comfortable majority but more than a close result. Tabletop

Referendum cleared the ridings, but not the popular vote. But at 57% it's not going to just die away, that's for sure.


Kelvinc 11:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the voting system convention is sounded as if it was very well organised. The convention voting "strongly" even "heavily" for the new system.

I added a blurb on the 2001 results. I think it serves the purpose. My concern was really with the specific wording of 'comfortable' and 'lopsided', which I did not use.

Kelvinc 18:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CBC Results and Elections BC results don't match.

D'oh! looks like the results are inaccurate. Still waiting for one poll in Bulkley-Stikine to come in. What, are they driving to Victoria or something? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

CBC always stops updating their results on elections night. See Elections BC for results. - Jord 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How does this work in a Westminster system?

Quoth the article:

Under amendments to the B.C. Constitution Act passed in 2001, B.C. elections are now held on fixed dates: the second Tuesday in May every four years.

How does that work in a Westminster system? Can the goverment no longer dissolve parliament and call a snap election? What if there's a coalition (not likely in Canada I know) that collapses or a by-election causes the ruling party to lose its majority? --Jfruh 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The legislation merely requires an election to be held on the second Monday in May four years following the previous election. If the government were to fall, new elections would be held and the next election would be the second Monday in May four years following that election presuming that it did not fall before hand. The amendement was relatively simple and can be found here. - Jord 02:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Colourblind-friendly"?

Wouldn't the map be less friendly to a person with red-green colourblindness? I ran both through Vischeck and the originals all seem far more colourblind friendly. --Ibagli (Talk) 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can tell you is I'm colorblind, and I can tell the difference between the red and the green in my map but not in the original. -- Mwalcoff 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)