Talk:2009 British Columbia general election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use of leader images on election pages

I've removed the Campbell image from this and the previous election page; without the other leader's image there this is entirely advertising oriented and 'visual favoritism' - and no other BC election pages haev such images. We do not elect leaders, we elect parties; this is not a presidential race ,despite the monarchical powers held by the leader of teh winning partner. "Campbell fluff" is all over Wikipedia, this is just another instance. What's appropriate here is map of the new ridings and that's all that's appropriate. Otherwise it's an endorsement. This page will also need major POV watch, as evinced by the previous comment (which I agree with - the difference will be that James will be the first elected-as-leader female Premier.Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill 42 struck down by Supreme Court

The court's decision to strike down Bill 42, which would have limited third-party spending/speech during this campaign should be noted, as also the impact already on independent speech/spending during the campaign, which has been decried as coming too late. I'm not prepared to write it up in NPOV fashion, but it's definitely pertinent to this election. Also not re the "Campaign' section taht the campaign officially hasn't "opened" yet.....things that happened in the lead-up are not the campaign strictly-speakingSkookum1 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Lali

re not mentioning yale-Lillooet - then there is no incumbent in Fraser-Nicola since it's a new riding; if not in the table, the way to indicate the incumbent in the closest-previous riding might be as a footnote, to avoid the space issue. Similarly Abbotsford-Mission re Randy Hawes....there can be no incumbents listed; when there's a "grandfathered MLA" who had served in an old seat, now running in a new/renamed-adjusted one, that should at least be in a footnote.Skookum1 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this about Lali? It's equally true of Charlie Wyse next door in Cariboo South vs. Cariboo-Chilcotin, or Barry Penner on the other side in Chilliwack-Kent vs. Chilliwack-Hope, or Gordon Campbell in Vancouver-Point Grey (2001 model year) vs. Vancouver-Point Grey (2009 model year).
*Every* riding bar five is "new" in the sense of having new boundaries, and then of those 80, something like 40 have new names. There's nothing unusual about denoting incumbency even if the potential territory an MLA would serve if re-elected would differ slightly. There's nothing unusual about denoting incumbency even if the name on the MLA's letterhead would differ if they were reelected. For both the above cases, the common practice in the mainstream media has been to denote incumbency--see, for instance, these CBC examples from BC federally in 2004: [1] [2] [3]. And that's been the guiding principle we've used in dozens of past Canadian elections articles done using these templates... see, for instance, this, this and this.
Remember, incumbency is a property of people, not districts. The Tom (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just picked Lali as example as it was yale-Lillooet/Fraser-Nicola that I spotted. But consider Charlie Wyse; not sure which part of Cariboo South he was from, but if he was from Cache Creek-Ashcroft or Clinton he'd be just as much an incumbnent in Fraser-Nicola, in a way....I guess what I'm suggesting is a footnote maybe a general one to say "incumbents in newly-created ridings are those candidates who had served in a predecesor riding and have chosen the new one to run in: etc. (in better wording than that). otherwise it's a conundrum, in definitional terms...Skookum1 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a generalized note and I've stuck one in with the other explanatory notes for the candidate list. The Tom (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Incombency may be a property of people, not districts; but when Boomer Walkem ran in Cariboo, he had been already an MLA elsewhere (or is it not Walkem I'm thinking of?); so he wasn't an incumbent in Cariboo, even though already an MLA - no? McBride was first elected in Dewdney (or Westminster-Dewdney maybe - yeah, in 1900, then in Dewdney in 1903 - though pretty much the same riding yes) in 1903 and 1907 but that didn't mean he was in the incumbent in the riding he ran in for the 1909 election Victoria City. (Skookum1 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

BC 2009 election

Not all ridings contain infoboxes started to add them to existing ridings which did not have them. Started adding 2009 election box templates (blank) for the 2009 election.SriMesh | talk 04:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

POV bolding in tables

It's subtle but it's there, in advertising-theory terms, and the clue is provided here:

Names in bold indicate party leaders and cabinet ministers.

That can ONLY be fair if ministry critics are included, otherwise there are many, many Liberal candidates bolded, and only one NDPer bolded. Either that bit of decoration is removed, or all incumbents are bolded, in the same that on election-results pages the winners are. This may be accidental POV-promotion, but it's definitely promotional in result; these names should not be bolded simply because they are cabinet ministers - over half the Liberal caucus is cabinet ministers; and most of the NDP caucus are ministry critics. NPOV is about optics as much as language.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed teh bolding from cabinet members; the effect of this is promotional in nature; only party leaders are in bold now.Skookum1 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how highlighting a good two dozen Liberals and only one NDPer, one Communist, one Tory, and one Green, is anything but partisan in effect (if not intent). There is no signficance worthy of bolding to a cabinet member; I see only the point for incumbents, incumbents of any kind. If this is a style that was established in previous election pages somewhere, it is highly quesitonable in a system where it means that the ruling/incumbent party's candidates receive a higher - bolder - profile n the article's visual style than those of contesting candidates. There is no reason to bold cabinet members; if there is - and I doubt that there's a good one - then the "shadow cabinet" should ALSO be bolded.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I strongly dispute your characterization of this being "promotional."
This is longstanding Wikipedia practice, and reflects longer-standing journalistic practice to treat the electoral performance incumbent cabinet ministers as being of particular note. On elections night, a rundown of cabinet minister performance is a fixture in campaign coverage, and virtually every online results page will have an option to show the ridings held by cabinet ministers.
NPOV is not about magically "balancing" A and B, it's about relaying objective facts. Gordo's gang are in power, and much as I intend to cast my vote to change this, it's an objective fact that cabinet ministers are special and only one party has them. The Tom (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a reason, in advertising, why ads that feature bold type sell more than those in plain type; and people pay money to have such highlighting, its very intent in advertising use is promotional; and citing the graphics behaviour of the extremely POV media in this country is scarcely a recommendation. They, after all, are teh ones who sell bold type in their classified ads, they know exactly what they're doing. I remember highlightings on key ridings, I don't remember seeing lists of candidates where cabinet members are given in bold; only incumbents. It should also be remembered that cabinet is not part of the House, it is an extra vires extension of it, it is not a formal device of the House (whereas House Leader, Party Whip, and Speaker are). It's a pity it's not like the old pre-Great War days, where cabinet members had to resign their seats and run in a byelection to confirm their appointment; now that would get interesting.....NB on many, many articles, I've come across the use of bold to highlight specific information in anti-MOS kinds of ways ("decorative" use, more or less, but intended to highlight the names/companies/ ski lifts or whatever the case might be). There's no doubt at all that the use of bold is a highlighting feature, and therefore promotional in effect. As I 'll state again, politics and POV is as much about optics as it is language per se. Advertising theory is built on this. Same idea as repetitive printing or a name, or repetitive reciting of it, has an impact; it twigs the memory circuits because of the mnemonic impact (to whit, tons of political articles where certain politicians' names are repeated so many times the personal pronoun never appears...). And I'm not concerned about your motive here, I'm concerned about the effect of this style/usage.....it has a POV effect. If that's a style used by the major media, that's their problem and Wikipedia shouldn't adopt it just because they use it. They also use fluffed-up polls and misconstrued facts and quotes - should Wikipedia use that too?Skookum1 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Bolding the cabinet in the "Incumbent" column makes sense to me, but I don't see the reasoning behind bolding in the in the "Candidates" column - it is an unnecessary distiction (repeated info) and it is usually the winning candidate that is bolded, regardless of their standing in the previous government. Is there any object to removing the bolding in the "Candidates" column? maclean 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a much more tasteful resolution, though I sitll don't like the highlighting of the cabinet at all, unless the opposition's portfolio critics are similarly highlighted; or they could at least be footnoted, as should the cabinet portfolios. But at least it takes it out of the candidates columns, where the effect is necessarily emphatic on one name, and so advantageous as drawing attention/imprint to that name. As below, and as I've said above and will now say again, POV is about optics as much as it is about wording (politics being politics, basically).Skookum1 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sterk and Hanni should be in infobox

As noted above, the titles "First Party, Second Party" are POV/partisan in effect if not intent. And this is a four-way race, though only two parties may garner seats, so the infobox should have Sterk's and Hanni's pictures as well. saying no to this is like playing CBC/CTV and deciding whether or not the Greens hsould be on the national leader's debate. The Liberals were a "minor party" in 1991, too.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at other elections, it seems to be the case that only parties with currently elected members are in the infobox. If it works for the other jurisdictions it should work for BC Bmcnamee (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Drawing a cutoff between "major" and "minor" is a longstanding real-world problem that's kicked up a lot of fuss over the years. (For instance, stuff like who gets invited to the leaders debate is a big deal.)
My sense is that at the moment it's probably most defensible to take the position that there are 3 "major" parties deserving generally-equivalent billing, and then there are the rest. All three will run 85 candidates and all three will have leaders in the debate.
Promoting Hanni/the Conservatives into the big leagues seems like making a bit of an arbitrary judgement call, IMHO. They may not even wind up having as many candidates as the Refed crew. Now, if the Conservatives do indeed surpass 30 candidates, it may be worth revisiting whether they should get a column of their own in the ridings table, and then maybe we could put Hanni in the infobox too. The Tom (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to look at whose in the leaders debates, how many candidates the parties running, and how their numbers in the polls look like. Not in the debates, 18 candidates, and most polls incl. the Conservatives in the other category does not constitute major party status. 70.50.220.99 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


"First Party, Second Party" displaying in infobox

I gather that's a result of the infobox's format-code, but it's entirely inappropriate; I tried to see if those fields could be easily renamed, or the titles hidden, but don't understand the code enough to do so. This is DEFINITELY POV in quality/result, whether or not it was unintentional and must be changed IMMEDIATELY. Also, at least the Green Party leader should be included, and perhaps also the Conservative leader. There is lots of evidence out there in the polls that this is not a two-way race; there may only be two parties when the dust settles, but there are two other parties that definitely will influence the outcome of the vote. NPOV is about optics as much as language, as noted above.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You were correct to bring this up at Template talk:Infobox Election#"First Party, Second Party" because a change would affect hundreds of articles. If there is an option to substitute our own title in, I prefer to just leave out completely the "First Party, Second Party" titles. maclean 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Bush-Kerry example on the template talk page there's no such titling; maybe there's a switch built into the template to turn it off. I can see having the ability to put party names up there, but I really don't see any other point than some kind of ranking to say "First, Second, Third" visibly, just because the fields are named party1, party2, party3 etc.Skookum1 (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(1) It is triggered by "type = parliamentary", whereas Bush-Kerry is "type = presidential". (2) It is turned off by using the "ongoing = yes" parameter. I made the switches here --maclean 05:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
�Thanks, I applied it also to the 2005 page where it was similarly displaying (and where only Campbell's and James' picture appear, despite there being more than two parties in the major parties section).Skookum1 (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:British_Columbia_general_election,_2005#First.2FSecond_Party_in_infobox.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Should not be included in party list

Removing this, some nuts run in three ridings, three people, and their a party. Total slander to say this group wants a progress block with Democrats. Like three people runnng for the Nazis party and saying the Nazis party wants a progess block with the BC Liberals.


erasing them Communist Party of British Columbia Leader: George Gidora The Communist Party will run three candidates in the election, as they did in 2005. The CPBC is campaigning against BC-STV in favour of a Mixed Member Proportional representation system. One major aspect of their platform is the call for a progressive block of Communists and New Democrats elected to the legislature.


{{helpme}} Someone keeps slandering the NDP by saying this party supports them. It's political, and costing votes. Dirty politics. It also insults BC naming this party. I have lived in BC all my life and never heard of them. Don't exist. Like saying that there is a KKK party and they want a combined government with your party.

The {{helpme}} template is meant to be used on your talk page. Please either use it there to request help from experienced users, or continue your discussion on this page with others who edit British Columbia general election, 2009 without using the template. Thank you. --Mysdaao talk 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If they're on the ballot, they should be listed just like every other party on the ballot. If we're going to include brief summaries of the parties' platforms, we should do so in a consistent manner. I don't think we should state that one party supports another without also mentioning the other party's response to the support. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Premier-Elect Title is Misleading

Just as we saw Canadians confused and poorly educated about our parliamentary system during the coaliation blunder in November/December 2008, we continue to see small misguidings in how are system is run on Wikipedia pages. While not entirely a large issue, in Canada, and most notably referenced in scholarly as opposed to popular jargon, we have Premier- and Prime Minister-designates. Our premiers and prime ministers are not elected, they are appointed by the Goveror General based on who the GG beleives has the control of parliament. Even in a majority situation the leader of the largest party is not technically guaranteed the post (although this scenerio would be quite unusual). In the latter instance, both an opposition party member or a dissident member of the winning party could make a claim that they indeed control the most members of the house and not the leader. More common, however, is the case where a leader loses his own seat, but his party wins the election. History shows us that the leader, while unelected, will usually be appointed prime minister and then seek a seat in a by-election as soon as possible or enter the Senate.

So while this is a technical issue, obviously, I think Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible and use the appropriate term "-designate" when talking of likely appointments for the premier or prime minister of a province.

P.S. - I am also aware that individuals such as Stephen Harper himself has used the term "-elect" but, as noted above, while popularly used, it is still not accurate given our appointment system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.76.58 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing attention to this. I have made the switch here [4] -maclean 00:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Youth vote

No, I don't mean the demographics of younger voters; I mean the under-electoral-age youth election, which released its results a few days before election day proper (or was it on election night? I've forgotten); I think it was 14-18 year olds, and of course the results were different; not a poll, more like a future-ekection poll given that all these kids, the ones in this exercise, will most likely be voting in 2013.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Low Voter Turnout section needed

As per my edit comment on adding the lowered voter turnout figure (-12.1%) see this article in The Hook, which is The Tyee's news blog-cum-"wire service", i.e. a newsfeed, rather than op-ed which is the webzin's mainstay. The issues of the lowered vote expressed in that article, including the story of the Chief Elections Officer's public concern. Also in the voter turnout section could be figures, if available, on the age/economic/region spectrum/profile; the demographic of the vote; just the figures, no analysis unless we can cite some out there somewhere. The proportionate turnout per region, including rise/drop in turnout since 2005, can also be charted without being OR, since we already have the numerical figures (well, excepting for the ridings still being recounted; see this other Tyee article about that; notes on those recounts and how tight it was and the main three-way splits should all be added, as NPOV as possible. Sorry I don't have the time (or enough of my own POV about these results) but providing the data for others to render...other demographics of the turnout include of course ethnic voting, notably the influence of the new Chinese conservative populations in ridings foreerly staunchly NDP (e.g. North Burnaby, B Lougheed; this is in a few pieces of news copy out there......other items like Heed and Yiu in Vancouver Fraserview, with the Chinese vote largely not going to Yiu but Heed as I understand it, and the to-the-wire finish between Oppal and Huntington....this article doesn't have to be just data, it can be coverage; I wish we had flyies on the wall at the time to write up the old BC elections of teh 1800s or especially access to news copy easily from the elections since 1972, or 1952; none of that's online (yet, that is; some of it's online but it's pay-for and probably vetted/ selectively deleted/absnet. All just thoughts arising from calculating the percentage drop, and also wondering if the actual-numbers-of-votes shoudl be given in the main tables, i.e. the per-riding rows, where the rise/drop in voter turnout per riding can be shown, and maybe also the real proportion of the voters list in support of a candidate; that last one verges on OR but it's not really; it's just a chart, if soembody would care to add the columns....(time-consuming I know)Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Looking at the BC 2009 blog, I found this article - "Voter Turnout Misconceptions - which is worth a read. As far as I can see it doesn't affect the -12.1% drop in raw numbers of votes, but perhaps a lot of what's in there could be explained in the article, i.e. voter turnout as being calculated based on registered voters, rather than on the entire population (which is where the 48.6% figure has been coming from).Skookum1 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Put the results near the top of the page

Can someone rearrange this page so the election result is one of the first items, if not the very first. This would make it consistent with every other entry on BC's provincial elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djn81 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Columbia general election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_British_Columbia_general_election/Archive_1&oldid=1030866737"