Talk:Ottawa municipal election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Ottawa (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (marked as Low-importance).


This article was nominated for deletion on October 15, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Robert 15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1.Brian McGarry is out of the race... 2.He is a Liberal card holder.. not conservative


Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Wards have not been confirmed, lists candidates that have not declared candidacy. --Spinboy 22:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, newcomer. See U.S. Presidential election, 2008 for an idea of how future elections are conducted on wikipedia. Also, ward boundaries are fully sourced in this article. -- Flag of Canada.svg Earl Andrew - talk 22:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But as you pointed out, it's not official. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --Spinboy 22:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not yet, but it's not a prediction, it's what the boundary review committee has stated. -- Flag of Canada.svg Earl Andrew - talk 22:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CECLFCE Trustees[edit]

I'm pretty disappointed with the fact that English councils Trustees were mentionned, but not french. Come on, it's on the same page on the City's website.. Do things competly or don't do them at all.

Calm down, the page is a work in progress. We're still missing the French public board. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, cause I've started. But I mean, it's been up for weeks, and people have been putting priorities on fixing small stuff when this should be done. I'm perfectly calm, just a bit disappointed, that's all. --Deenoe 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my interest in those boards isn't very high, but I was going to get around to it. Also, will you be marking the incumbents or shall I? -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The city's election page does not mark the incumbents, probably cause there is none : Which I understand, Interest in those jobs is pretty low. --Deenoe 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, the city's doesnt show the incumbent for any person running. --Deenoe 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


John Baird announced that the 200M$ from the Federal would not be given until the new council approves the project. Should we add this to the timeline. --Deenoe 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

poll on polls[edit]

I really dont like how all the fringe candidates (who havent registered on any polls) clutter up the list of polls. What do others think? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, take 'em away, addition their percentage (when they're in the poll) and put it in an Others column (with a note after the table saying the name of the candidates). --Deenoe 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on it ;) --Deenoe 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Done! :D --Deenoe 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Slow down a second. Putting something up for discussion for only 18 hours before making changes hardly constitutes a reasonable opportunity for discussion.
2. Two "votes" to zero ... and now two "votes" to one hardly constitutes consensus.
3. If the graph is ever changed, please make sure it remains 100.0% accurate to the polling data/information that is there now. This latest attempt at merging the data resulted in the "Source: Ottawa Sun, 30 April 2005" reference at the bottom of the chart being left out.
Obviously, my opinion is keep as is. There is no reason why a full breakdown of the published polls can't be presented here. The chart fits and is not that hard to read.
I'm going to revert the changes to the chart now. Please leave it that way for at least a few days. The chart is accurate and readable as-is, so there is no reason not to give other people a fair opportunity to "voice in" on this if they want. Thanks. Wolfchild 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
While it may fit your screen, it doesn't on mine, just as an FYI. Anyways, my rationale is, you wouldn't include all the candidates in say- Toronto, why do it for Ottawa? I really don't think any of the polling firms are even including the minor candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting about the screen. I wouldn't have guessed that since my laptop screen is not big either. As far as the Toronto v. Ottawa argument - it's apples and oranges. Ottawa has 8 candidates - ALL of whom received individual poll results more than once. Toronto has 38 mayoral candidates and NO polling firm would ever prompt poll all 38 names and release individual results for them. Can you see their telephone interviewers reading out that list? Even results for unprompted polls (where a bunch of "other" candidates would get some votes) would probably only be released from the source polling firm as "Candidate A, B, C, D, other" ... and even if all of the numbers were released to the press, they wouldn't print the full list ... and even if a newspaper ever did print the full poll results with all 38 individual candidate numbers including dozens of "0.01%"s, I can assure you that I wouldn't be so silly as to try to publish them here. ;) Wolfchild 04:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One other reason I'm not in favour of cutting it down is that (at least by the last two attempts) it is being proposed to remove the names of three currently registered candidates for Mayor and leave in the name of Terry Kilrea - a person who is not and never was a registered candidate. Higher numbers (in early polling) or not, something about that just doesn't seem like a fair thing to do. Wolfchild 06:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Terry Kilrea was registered and dropped out. He was the 3rd favorite candidate, and the arrived 3rd in the 2003 election. He was a big candidate so his name has to be there. As for Jane Scharf, Barkley Pollock et Piotr Anweiller, most people never heard of them. Barkley Pollock has his website on MYSPACE. And even then, those three candidates only got ~3% in the polls TOGETHER and are not included in polls anymore. There were only included in two polls. I don't think we needed a consensus on this since it seems pretty obvious that we shouldn't put their names in the polls results. --Deenoe 13:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And I didn't talk about Robert Larter. Those 4 candidates never made a public intervention (for the exception of Jane Scharf that did once, who would be the only candidate I would let in the tables) so I don't see why we should include them to the polls tables. Oh and FYI, the ~3% is because they all had =<1%... I think this speaks for itself. --Deenoe 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of cutting the list down. Wikipedia is not a primary source, it is an encyclopedia. We don't have to publish all raw data just because it exists. I would be in favour of a rule that says you must be a current candidate, and you must have more than 10% of the vote to be listed. -- cmhTC 14:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree for the 10% of the vote, but I'd prefer if that guideline would be that you must have more than 10% and be registered at some point in the campaign. --Deenoe 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not just add after the ~3% the † and say that it is the result for Barkley Pollock, Jane Scharf and Piotr Anweiller together, and if eventually we receive results for Robert Larter we should use a different sign for those results. --Deenoe 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think 10% is a bit high for inclusion, but none of the candidates have even got 1% yet, so that's not an issue. If one of them started getting 3 or 4 percent, then we might want to add him or her. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Question abouts links[edit]

Question? Why are there no links to any of the election websites of the incumbents, while all the new candidates do have that connection? (15 October 2006 20:20 EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogarch (talkcontribs)

Because most (if not all) incumbents have articles on Wikipedia. --Deenoe 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Add links to their Wikipedia articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== New poll surveys ==--Deenoe 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Really not funny joke.. Piotr Anweiller within 4 points of Munter? Lolination? If that happend, I shall run naked on Rideau and shave my genitals. I checked, nothing abotu a surveying company called DESMO on Google. --Deenoe 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The same anon was fiddling with the numbers. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Warning was issued, I consider this has vandalism now. --Deenoe 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay this is weird... He has been reported to AIV, and then his talk page was cleared... I'm sorry but this is clear vandalism. --Deenoe 21:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New poll up.. and also this polls give a lot of interesting numbers that I think we should add. The percentage of English-speaking voters and French-speaking voters to which candidate, the main concerns.. etc.. --Deenoe 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Election day[edit]

On election day, what do we do? We update the records as they go or we wait for the last count? --Deenoe 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


He dropped out of the race a few days ago (November 10th?) citing unfair treatment by the media. He threw his support behind O'Brien citing similar platforms. The necessary changes should be made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Couldn't find anything on the news. Couldn't find anything on City of Ottawa. Couldn't find anything in his website. Plus I don't think a candidate can drop out after anticipation vote. --Deenoe 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I did hear someone tell me this today, for what it's worth. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
From the way it was worded on the CJOH news it sounded like he was quitting the race but in actual fact he may have just thrown his support behind Larry O'Brien.Anweiler Backing O'Brien Not sure why he would do that but he's basically telling anyone who would vote for him to vote for O'Brien instead.-- 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes a lot more sense! --Deenoe 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity from a former Ottawan[edit]

I haven't heard that much Ottawa news in the past week; I'm genuinely curious how it is that O'Brien magically went from a nine-point deficit in a poll ending November 7 to winning this thing in just one week. Bearcat 02:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm f*cking pissed! :( -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
WP is not a soapbox, but I forgive you, and I don't like that rule. I am extremely disappointed also. But anyways. Larry O'Brien was in last place back in the days Terry Kilrea was in the mayoral race. Then, Terry Kilrea quitted the race, and even if he gave his support to Chiarelli, people went behind O'Brien. O'Brien was then 3rd in a 3 horses race. He made sweet promises he wont be able to keep (Zero means zero, LRT, police officers) and flipflopped alot. That's why. Sad day for Ottawa. --Deenoe 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's over![edit]

This article is pretty much closed now. I'd like to thanks everyone who contributed to it (Earl Andrew, SimonP, DI2000 and many others!). Also I would like to congrats myself and everyone else who participated to the blitz of adding data. Good job :) --Deenoe 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work everyone - guess there are a couple of new councillor articles to create (Shad Qadri and Steve Desroches at least). I just did the stub on Christine Leadman (W15/Kitchissippi). Dl2000 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)