Talk:2024 British Columbia general election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 British Columbia general election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 366 days

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada: British Columbia / Politics Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Polls from Angus Reid

I am unable to find some polls to find the polls in graphs [1] (november 2020 and March 2021) Braganza (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the two Angus Reid polls in the table for Nov 2020, both sets of numbers come from subsets of the same poll, as seen in the detailed results: http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020.12.09_Province_Spotlight-PR-Tables.pdf

The difference comes from using "currently support" and "likely to support." I suggest we use the numbers they chose to publish in their main November report, and ignore their numbers in past vote intent graphs. What a mess! Lilactree201 (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones did they publish? "Currently" or "Likely"? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently" Lilactree201 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

new map issues

hi Talleyrand6

Truncation: the right side of the image is truncated in the thumbnail and full view as seen here.

Contrast: the current very light grey colour of the ridings make distinguishing the white riding borders very difficult. The previous image used a much darker grey where this wasn't an issue.

Additionally, I would set the initial values at "0.0%"... we don't format zero values with double digits. You can also save visual space by removing the "BC" in front of every party name since the image is clearly about BC (i.e. just "New Democratic" "United" "Conservative" "Green").

Finally, per MOS:ABBR and sentence case, the title should be "2024 BC general election" and subsequent heads should be:

"93 seats in assembly"
"47 for majority"

And the "Vote %" should have a space between "vote" and "%". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems another issue affecting this is the decision to use teal for BC United at Template talk:Canadian party colour/Archive 3#RfC: British Columbia United. That was also discussed at Talk:BC United#Colour. While I was in the camp advocating pink, we seemed to have lost the argument. If we are going to switch to pink, some discussion is likely required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the legend is cut off on the right side of the map we are currently using in the article (Option 2). Perhaps we should revert to the Option 1 map, at least until these issues raised by Joeyconnick are resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this thread started it seems like the map was changed from one by Tallyrand6 to a similar one by Matthew McMullin, but I wanted to reopen the question of BC United's map colour. The Wikibox and the template are using teal, but the map still uses pink. It would be ideal to align these. --CaelemSG (talk) 2024-06-15 18:54 (UTC)

Issues Section

This section seems to be a WP:OR table relying only on party platforms and arguably no reliable sources. Furthermore, MOS:USEPROSE suggests that we should use prose not use a table for this information. Should we blow the section up and start over?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of it would be okay by me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like these issues/platform sections are not included in the articles for the last few BC elections. I think it can be dealt with in a campaign section that sets out relevant details in prose.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of these sections; just because people use Wikipedia as an election resource doesn't mean it actually is. We should only cover issues that are flashpoints in the campaign. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United/Conservative Merger talks

We should probably mention this somewhere.[2][3][4][5] Not sure where in the article is appropriate, perhaps in a new "Campaign" section. That might be easier to do in the coming weeks, if something actually comes of it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former BCU candidates

Can we add a symbol to denote former BCU candidates in the candidate list, at least until it becomes clear which ones agree to withdraw, which ones, if any, choose to run as independents and which ones, if any, end up running as Conservatives? Wellington Bay (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a separate table might be more appropriate for analyzing the fate of all these candidates, as current reports suggest that the situation is quite fluid right now. We might be seeing the rise of a situation similar to what happened in Australia with their Teal independents.Raellerby (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The need for this table is already obvious. After doing a headcount from the information in this article, I noted how many candidates there were, and how many of those had been incumbent MLAs. It was reverted on the grounds that there were many more of both. If that bald assertion is true, we need a table showing all the nominees, with separate columns showing withdrawals, switches to other parties, and those who are continuing to campaign as independents. I don't know where to start to compile the whole story, so I'll defer this task to those who can.Raellerby (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a raw unsorted table based on all the entries made in this article, on the fate of the various BCU candidates. The only intensive verification so far is for the incumbents running. Obviously not ready for insertion in the mainspace, and corrections will be cheerfully accepted:Raellerby (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of BC United candidates after party withdrawal from contention
District	Candidate	Withdrew	Continued standing as
			Con.	Ind	NA

Prince George-Valemount	Shirley Bond	Y
Vancouver-Quilchena	Kevin Falcon	Y
Fraser-Nicola	Jackie Tegart	Y
Kamloops-South Thompson	Todd Stone	Y
Prince George-Mackenzie	Kiel Giddens		Y
Columbia River-Revelstoke	Scott McInnis		Y
Kamloops Centre	Peter Milobar		Y
Surrey-White Rock	Trevor Halford		Y
Delta South	Ian Paton		Y
Burnaby North	Michael Wu		Y
Port Coquitlam	Keenan Adams		Y
Nanaimo-Gabriola Island	Dale Parker		Y
Nechako Lakes	Shane Brienen				Y
Peace River North	Dan Davies				Y
Peace River South	Mike Bernier			Y
Cariboo-Chilcotin	Michael Grenier				Y
Prince George-North Cariboo	Coralee Oakes				Y
Kootenay-Rockies	Tom Shypitka				Y
Boundary-Similkameen	Ron Hovanes				Y
Kelowna Centre	Michael Humer				Y
Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream	Pavneet Singh				Y
Kelowna-Mission	Ashley Ramsay				Y
Penticton-Summerland	Tracy St. Claire				Y
Salmon Arm-Shuswap	Greg McCune				Y
Vernon-Lumby	Kevin Acton			Y
West Kelowna-Peachland	Stephen Johnston				Y
Abbotsford-Mission	Merrick Matteazzi				Y
Chilliwack North	David Moniz				Y
Langley-Walnut Grove	Barb Martens				Y
Surrey-Newton	Japreet Lehal				Y
Surrey South	Ernie Klassen				Y
Delta North	Amrit Pal Singh Dhot				Y
Richmond Centre	Wendy Yuan				Y
Richmond-Queensborough	Pavan Bahia				Y
Richmond-Steveston	Jackie Lee				Y
Burnaby East	Tariq Malik				Y
Burnaby-New Westminster	Daniel Kofi Ampong				Y
Coquitlam-Burke Mountain	Kash Tayal	Y
Burnaby South-Metrotown	Meiling Chia				Y
Vancouver-Langara	Jaime Stein				Y
North Vancouver-Seymour	James Mitchell				Y
West Vancouver-Capilano	Caroline Elliott				Y
Courtenay-Comox	Bill Coltart				Y
Cowichan Valley	Jon Coleman				Y
Ladysmith-Oceanside	Lehann Wallace				Y
Mid Island-Pacific Rim	Joshua Dahling				Y
Juan de Fuca-Malahat	Herb Haldane				Y
Surrey-Cloverdale	Claudine Storness-Bliss	Y

= Incumbent MLA

Eventual results table

With the withdrawal of BC United in favour of the Conservatives, the analytical table will have some different features. At the very least, we should probably combine the 2020 votes the Liberals and Conservatives received for comparative purposes in the election table. I can also see some wild analysis for the detailed results in other tables, but that's another topic.Raellerby (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For calculating swings, I think it makes sense to compare the Conservative result to the 2020 BC Liberal results (or combined BC Lib+Cons where applicable). Things get a little bit murky if BCU does run a few candidates to keep party status, though. However, if no one in the media is making these comparisons, we may not be able to due to original research.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combined figures should be OK according to WP:CALC.Raellerby (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the math specifically, but whether or not we should be comparing the Conservative results to the Liberal results, as they're two separate parties. That choice should be based on reliable sources.-- Earl Andrew - talk 12:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless the parties actually merge. We've had other situations where one party displaces a similar party - eg the Saskatchewan Party displacing the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party and even though most PC MLAs and politicians joined the new party at its founding the vote change column treats the SP as a new party. This isn't a perfect analogy as the old PCs continued as a rump party and still ran a few candidates. Nevertheless until and unless there is a formal merger I think we should treat the parties as distinct. For instance if the BCU restarts itself after the election and some of the BCU MLAs running currently as independents form the BCU or Liberal caucus it would make more sense to treat the former BCUers running as independents as the BCU. Also, what about individual riding results where a BCU incumbent or former candidate is running as an independent? Take Tom Shypitka who is still a BCU MLA even though he is running as an independent - will we compare his 2024 result with his 2020 result as a BCU candidate or do we attribute his 2020 results to the Conservatives and compare the Conservative candidates 2024 result with the combined Liberal/Conservative result in 2020? I think it makes more sense not to bundle the two parties' results. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a case to compare the two parties based on how BCU folded, and I think we should be comparing the parties' results if the media is also doing so. If not, then any statistical comparison would be original research. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still going to be a much messier presentation this time, even in comparison to the Coalition elected back in 1941, 1945 and 1949. Back then, both parties were still functioning even though they ran joint candidates. This year, BCU just abandoned the campaign, and a string of 100% decreases from the previous Liberal results just does not make sense.Raellerby (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wellington Bay, keep them separate. The BC Conservatives may be the new vehicle for the right-wing in the province, but it's not a clean succession. There's going to be all sorts of edge cases to argue about (as WB already pointed out), and besides that, I think it's OR to try to bash their results together. If the media draws comparisons between the BC Con results and the BC Lib results, we can always talk about this in prose. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the media is comparing the data for both parties, I think we should do the same here, as it wouldn't be original research.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest reports from the Vancouver Sun indicate that BCU will not field any placeholder candidates and its staff are going to be given severance payouts as there's no likelihood of the Conservatives taking them on. Confusingly, Falcon still appears to be the leader, even in the midst of this implosion. A merger is definitely not forthcoming. I'll have to see if anything like this has ever happened anywhere else. At least this campaign is not boring. As Allan Fotheringham once said, in BC politics is entertainment.Raellerby (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing BC United from the Graphic

Since BC United is not running any candidates, we should remove them from the graphic. They literally cannot receive any votes.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Raellerby (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted it out, until it can be updated.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling Graph Issue

Per the graph and table in the polling section, Mainstreet Research is the only polling firm showing a Conservative lead since October 3, with all other pollsters showing NDP leads of varying degrees. However, because Mainstreet does more polls than every other agency combined, the five-day average shows a conservative lead. Is there a way to address that? If there isn't, is there a way to at least add a disclaimer? Eric Grenier's post could be used as a source if needed: https://www.thewrit.ca/p/election-writ-1015-are-the-bc-conservatives NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that could be part of a post-election commentary in that section. I'm sure that other observations will be published in the next few days to add to that, after we see how the actual results turned out.Raellerby (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results subject to change, absentee ballots counted today

Elections BC will be releasing the final results after absentee ballots are counted. Currently Surrey-Guildford riding has cons leading by 12 votes, down from over a hundred before 250 or so mail in ballots were counted. There's about 230 absentee ballots left to count in that riding, it is entirely possible that the seat will flip NDP and the results will be a majority government for the NDP. Not that it really matters, but perhaps we should not be making it seem like the current results are the final results in the article? Chuckstablers (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead need trimming.

There are too many information in the lead which is either presented poorly or are completely unnecessary.

Especially 2020 results mentioned in the first para is totally confusing. Manasbose (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually the longest delay between election and result

Bit of an odd situation here. We have an article in the National Post that says "Not since 1952 have British Columbians gone to the polls and then entered an extended fugue state of not knowing who won". The Post is a reliable source, but this claim is actually incorrect. The 2017 election had a longer wait than 2024: there, the time between election day and the counting of absentee/mail-in ballot counts was two weeks (in 2024, it was one). 2017 was also an election that was so close that those ballots could have conceivably changed the results (though they didn't), so it's not just an academic point, 2017 had that same "fugue". And if we consider time from election to the formation of government, then it's an even longer wait.The full story is in the article's #Aftermath section. So should this be removed? — Kawnhr (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point being made was that the seat count did change between the initial and final counts, unlike in 2017 where the delay was inconsequential. 1952 was probably an unfair comparison, though, as a completely different voting system was implemented for that election which really caused delays. Perhaps that could be made more explicit in the comment being made.Raellerby (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]