Talk:Trinity–Spadina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] Poll-by-poll results
I recently obtained access to a map of polling stations from Elections Canada and had a look at the 2006 results. Ianno actually narrowly carried Little Italy, that is polls 92, 98-101, 106-110 and 113, so either the author who made this claim has a different definition of Little Italy (I use the "official" definition of Bathurst to Ossington, College to Dundas) or is mistaken, as I find it difficult to believe Chow lost ground to Ianno anywhere between '04 and '06. MF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnf (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I don't believe much of the commentary belongs in this entry. First off, it is a POV that the Annex voted with their pocket books. In fact, more people in the Annex voted NDP than Liberal. The Annex is poll 22 to 40, check elections Canada. Pete Peters 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have removed this statement. There are probably more spuclative/POV comments that could go. Be bold! Ground Zero | t 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Also important to Ianno's victory was the disintegration of support for Conservative David Watters, closely related to the general meltdown in Conservative support across the country on the days just before the election.
Canadian federal election, 2004
-
- More POV, these observations are based on speculation. What about the fact that StratCom had the NDP way ahead in Trintity-Spadina. Should we assume that the NDP vote collapsed too. That was the best showing from a Conservative Candidate since 1988. Pete Peters 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the parts in question were written by myself some years ago. While it it's all true, it almost all comes from personal knowledge and is not particularly verifiable. The NDP did win the Annex, but the margins were much smaller than expected. At the same time they lost the 400 series of waterfront polls by larger margins than they had hoped, and the Conservatives got fewer votes there than some intial polling had promised. At the same time, many soft Dippers shifted at the last minute from the NDP to Liberals to try to give the Liberals an extra seat to prevent a Conservative minority government. - SimonP 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see a lot of what you wrote was before the whole election wiki project took off. It explains the difference from the other riding layouts. As to the intial polling, was that StatCom polling? Because StratCom poll were very inaccurate in the 2004 election. Here is are some polls that were off by a longshot. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Pete Peters 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this was one of the first ridings to have a detailed election summaries, and it should all be changed to the standard table format. However, most riding articles could do with more well referenced descriptive prose of the election campaigns. The data I am referring to does not come from polls, but rather the voter identification efforts that went on in the riding. I also wouldn't be too hard on StratCom, all these polls had very small sample sizes and one would expect a large margin of error. - SimonP 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see a lot of what you wrote was before the whole election wiki project took off. It explains the difference from the other riding layouts. As to the intial polling, was that StatCom polling? Because StratCom poll were very inaccurate in the 2004 election. Here is are some polls that were off by a longshot. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Pete Peters 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the parts in question were written by myself some years ago. While it it's all true, it almost all comes from personal knowledge and is not particularly verifiable. The NDP did win the Annex, but the margins were much smaller than expected. At the same time they lost the 400 series of waterfront polls by larger margins than they had hoped, and the Conservatives got fewer votes there than some intial polling had promised. At the same time, many soft Dippers shifted at the last minute from the NDP to Liberals to try to give the Liberals an extra seat to prevent a Conservative minority government. - SimonP 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- More POV, these observations are based on speculation. What about the fact that StratCom had the NDP way ahead in Trintity-Spadina. Should we assume that the NDP vote collapsed too. That was the best showing from a Conservative Candidate since 1988. Pete Peters 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
We need not strive for uniformity. It doesn't make sense to delete content from one article just because another doesn't have similar contnt. It would be wonderful if all articles had detailed election summaries, but I don't think we should remove them from this one just because they don't all have them. On the other hand, we should always strive for verifiability, and some of this content may have to go if it is not verifiable. Ground Zero | t 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like the idea of placing content into the article. I don't like it when it is unsubstantiated speculation. I worked on the O.C. campaign, the whole atmosphere was filled with speculation and rumours. Too much time is spent jumping to conclusions. The canvass info doesn't say a whole lot. The recent 2 month election, they were able to identify a lot more people. Even then the NDP only ID'd 17 000 supportes. However lots of those people support is uncertain. I can't stand the simple assumptions made about why the NDP lost. It's like debating why France lost the World Cup, instead of saying Italy won. As for Stratcom, they are a whole different story. Pete Peters 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Much Needed Information
Does anyone know where to find the per capita income of this riding, or it's diversity breakdown. Pete Peters 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- StatsCan has all the info you need. --
Earl Andrew - talk 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have added the info in, and provided a link. Pete Peters 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other Opinions
Hello other Canadian Political Wikipedians! I am a bit confused, and would like to get other peoples opinion before I carry on. I was in the process of filling out candidates expenditures, but for many Conservative candidates I need some clarification. For the expenditures, many Conservative candidates recieved a lump sum transfer from their federal wing, only to be transfered back as an expense. In this riding the Conservative riding got around $50 000, only to be transfered back as a campaign expense back to the Conservative Fund as Radio and T.V. advertising. I noticed that this occurred in many ridings where the Conservative do not stand a chance. I do not know if this some legal loophole or something. Officially the Conservatives spent over $70 000 on this riding, but anyone who lives here knows the Conservative did not spend that much money on this riding. Should we post their official expenses, or should we post their IMO what is the real expenditures on the riding? Pete Peters 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely certain how to resolve this matter, but it might be worth mentioning (by way of precedent) that I decided not to include transfers to political parties when counting provincial election expenses in Manitoba. (Elections Manitoba distinguishes these transfers from other campaign expenses.) CJCurrie 03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why is this page restricted?
There's an election in October in this riding and candidates are being nominated, but I can't edit the page. It appears to be restricted and it's not clear why. It needs to be open for editing so we can keep the candidate information up to date. Thanks! Morwenne 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Initial quality assessment
I have given this article a B rating on the quality scale. I think it's ready to be submitted for a more in-depth review by more experienced editors to see if it qualifies for an 'A'. PKT (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
