![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2007 Ontario general election. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2007 Ontario general election at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Should there be consistent standards for the opinion polls? Two SES polls currently show undecided voters, although the links also show stats with just committed voters. All other polls simply show committed voters. I think the SES polls and all future polls should just show committed votes as a consistent criterion. Readers can still check links and footnotes for varying details in each poll. The same logic applies to election results: spoiled ballots and non-voters usually aren't counted in percentage totals. G(A)IA, 2007.09.01 @ 01.53 UTC.
In an unrelated story, I think they might have one or two new ones out now, it's oct 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dofer49- ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me why my contribution was reverted as being of "bad faith" by Nat?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ontario_general_election%2C_2007&diff=155127801&oldid=155116595
Maybe I'm just new to this whole wikipedia thing, but I read over the page on "good faith" edits and Nat's decision puzzled me (especially considering that the 'good faith' page even had specific sections on dealing with new wikipedians, which I am).
Is adding a site with polling trends and a meta-analysis of seat projections for the Ontario election bad faith? Can somebody please explain to me what exactly is 'bad faith' about what I did?
The contribution was not causing "deliberate disruption just to prove a point." The contribution was not "playing games with policies." And the contribution -- adding the only site with a meta-analysis of the Ontario general election that I'm aware of -- is most certainly not intended as vandalism.
Nat seems to think that including the information in the analysis does more harm than good to the article than having it does.
Can I get some feedback from people as to what they think and/or how to go about reverting this change?
Ottawastudent 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am adding an external link to Paulitics Projection Page. I agree that their blog is not referencable material, but Paul's calculations using the UBC Antweiler Election Forecaster is the only current application. Similarly, the Swing Model is based on sound methodology. Neither of these projections is available on a consistent basis on the web, yet they are most valuable and insightful to those seeking such studies. Paul's two models were added last week to our 6-model avg at TrendLines based on their merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredhutter ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
the editor of the "paulitics" blog seems to think that a certain editor (nat) is only saying his site should not be included, because he is a tory. first of all, that makes me sick, and that comment made me lose all respect for the editor, as I myself am a tory. secondly, despite what I think about the editor, the blog does offer information that is not avilable on other sites, that being an analysis of predictions. This is something that is valuable as it's important to keep in mind the differing methodoligies. What's needed is not to target a single link, but to come up with a rule for all future elections about these kind of prediction/projection sites. so in summary. site = good, editor = bad, having no set rules to deal with these situations = worse 74.14.16.208 05:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed this as a B Class, given its detail and organization, although it really needs some more cleanup and prose. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Whos adding the candidate numbers for those parties? they haven't nominated anyone yet according to there websites and if they have tell me where to get the info because nobody is putting the parties candidates in the list by region. 70.54.2.165 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
both FP candidates announced on the forum Free Dominion Nickjbor 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes we'll see if the Cor party has become defunct and if the Freedom party runs less candidates then the libertarians!
74.14.147.223 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I know who the damn Green candidate for leeds-grenville is, the GPO just hasn't updated the page yet. Jeanie Warnock will even be at my house tomorrow where we'll start collecting signatures for the returning officer.
74.14.146.93 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been involved with the GPO/GPC since I was 12 years old, I'm sure thats more then you can say. Heres the news article from the Recorder and Times. That would be the Brockville newspaper. Where I live in the riding: http://newsfeed.recorder.ca/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=23697 Lets now assume that when I add a Green candidate to the list, i know what the hell i'm talking about alrighty.
Political junky 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the article, You need to read it to understand that yes, she is the candidate in the riding. shes also in the PROCESS of creating her own campaign site, I personally have a couple of signs up on my lot, and i'm sure if you contacted the GPO they can confirm Jeanie is actually the candidate as I was just on the phone with her a few minutes ago. You really shouldn't concern yourself with something I know all about and you've shown to me you know very little about.
Political junky 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, however not only am i involved with the party, not only involved with the CA, not only involved with the campaign to elect Jeanie Warnock, but also live in the riding with a sign supporting the candidate. So no, I don't expect superiority over every issue, but when it comes to my party, my riding, my candidate, and i'm being challenged by some one who knows absolutly nothing about her, the riding, or the campaign in leeds-grenville I question whos writting many of the articles on Wikipedia. Political junky 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Untrue, We placed candidates on this page even before an election was called. Jeanie is verified as the candidate with the Green Party of Ontario and will be submitting her information to elections ontario later today. Again, we've been adding candidates even before the election was called so you and I both know that its a load of dung saying they have to be registered in order to be on wikipedia. http://www.vote-green.ca/jeanie.warnock
I'd also like to note, you all thought Mark Raby was the Green candidate until a few days ago. I know Mark personally and he only expressed light interest in running, never once committing to run. Please contact the GPO if you don't trust me with the issue.
Political junky 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Would everyone please read the top of this page. Where it links to: What Wikipedia is not - a FORUM
Quoting from the page:
This means, this page is for discussion on how to improve the article. Debate as to who wins the elections should be taken elsewhere. Please keep in mind NPOV and SOAP -- Statsone 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm Nickjbor 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When placing an entry please sign them by placing 4 ~ at the end of your entry. Your user name and a time and time stamp will be added automaticcaly.
Also, when responding to another entry, use as many : (colon's) as needed to indent. This make it easier to read comments. -- Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
How should withdrawals be indicated? [1] -- Zanimum 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding all the ind's listed here http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm 74.13.125.185 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) that was me BTW. Nickjbor 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
self explained Political junky 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Another question about one of the new parties, On the Party chart special needs is listed as having two candidates however in the list of candidates there is only one, anybody know of the second candidate if any? I'd choose a darker grey for the party now to avoid having the same colour as the independents.
74.14.147.119 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There are no "smaller parties", only people like you trying to limit choice and frame the debate. 70.178.56.254 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have a completed list from Elections Ontario, we should split the article and make the Candidates List its own article. My suggestion is to link to the page from this article. The Ontario general election, 2007 is now 85KB, so it is rather big by Wiki standards. Comments? -- Abebenjoe 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think like the 2003, General election everything should stay on one page.
74.14.147.119 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
if this is allowed to stay this way, without candidates, then the candidates list from the 2003 ontario election will have to be moved, to stay consistant. as will the list from the 2007 quebec election, as quebec has more ridings then Ontario does. Nickjbor 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know theres only Danish (there leader) running, so why does it say 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.147.119 ( talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:NONDP.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the addition of this text to at least 2 candidates' table entry (Suzanne Fortin, Martin Hyde). Since wikinews looks very official and just about blends in with wikipedia, I wonder if those are fake entries and if so, should be removed asap? (I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if there is some arrangement with wikinews) Ottawahitech 08:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
An encylopedia should not be endorsing any one news source, regardless of who the founder of both is. Nickjbor 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has reverted this edit to a previous version:
(cur) (last) 21:18, 4 October 2007 70.178.56.254 (Talk) (62,178 bytes) (undo)
Elections are about the future, and choice. This article should not be used as a propaganda tool to frame the debate. A list of the leaders in parties that offer a candidate in every riding is just as relevant to the 2007 Election as leaders from past elections.
This topic is not about the current government, but about October 10th's Election.
I will be restoring my edit.
Further, the candidates were presented in alphabetical order, again, to present the topic in a more neutral manner.
Parties were placed in the following order, ommitting boilerplate words like "party" "ontario" and using the intended purpose of the Party's title (for example, "Special" instead of "People")
communist confederation family freedom green liberal libertarian progressive republican reform special —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Im going to remove that list which is now redundant due to the infobox. nat t a n g 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on the information so far, which party could be predicted to form the next government, based on the number of seat it will attain and the number of seats the other provincial parties will also attain? Please answer ASAP the elections are tomorrow in my area and I want to know if I'm voting for the majority
-- • Storkian • 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There is urgent need to collaborate on the Ontario election coverage article (also see, Results of 2005 British Columbia, Canada General Election) on Wikinews. Any help is appreciated from editors on Wikipedia. FellowWikipe dian 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't do this because I am a new user but if somebody could add a section about voter turnout (52.8% http://www3.elections.on.ca/internetapp/realtimehome.aspx?lang=en&channel_id={923146e7-4d81-42a8-99f0-e61f5ab50387}&lang=en) and compare it to previous years- important given the dissatisfaction with the central issues of the campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.249.202 ( talk) 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Just some statistical information as possible leads.
Reference.
The CBC headline reads, "McGuinty Wins Massive Majority", however of the 8.4 million eligible voters only 52.6 % or 4.4 million voters cast a vote, of these 42.6% or 790,810 cast a vote for a Liberal Candidate, and of these 23,566 cast a vote directly for Premier McGuinty, (50.04% of the votes in his riding) as all other ridings cannot vote for the party leader.
This leaves 47.4% of the eligible voters not voting, 57.4% of those that voted or 2,525,600 voters, a majority of voters, who did not vote for a Liberal Candidate in the province, and even in Mr. McGuinty's riding, 49.96% of voters in his riding did not vote for him.
The move to change the electoral system, to represent minority parties failed to pass by over 63% because the changes would give more power to non-elected party members, however if we look at the details of the current system there are other ways to make changes to a system that empowers a minority, in many cases one individual, who we call a Premier over the Majority.
Seems that more logical electoral reforms include the use of run-off elections (used by parties to elect the party leader), an opportunity for voting seperately for a Premier, and giving our elected representatives 'free votes' on every vote, by eliminating the dictatorial power to the Premier, as is the case in most Municipal councils and the position of the Mayor, who gets one equal vote on all votes.
If my numbers are correct of all eligible voters, 8.4 million, only 23,566 voted for the Premier, and that is .2 %; now that is not a system that can state that "a majority" of the vote supporting Mr. McGuinty, and in fact 57.81 % of all voters did not vote liberal in the province; odd what a parliamentary system can do to a free vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the political system in Ontario has one voting for the local rep only, there is no vote for the party leader, nor the party. (merely indirectly)
The leader with the most elected party representatives, in majority governments forms the government. A detail that is important since the elected representatives have little power in government as the Premier calls the shots.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be a great idea if someone could find the victory speach of Mr. McGuinty for future reference.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Target seats need to be updated desperatly, they follow 2003 results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.24.182 ( talk) 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The numbers don't add up on the results chart, we're about 8,000 votes over the vote count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political junky ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the results are inaccurate, we're saying on that chart that there were 9,000 more voters then there actually were. That is far more inaccurate then unofficial results. this isn't including the independent candidates, so actually, we're farther off then originally thought. 74.15.24.182 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Another note on numbers: I like the regional breakdown section, but the PC seats add up to 25, and they won 26. What seat wasn't counted? MJR ( talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Image:Ondpsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ontlibsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me why we need Image:Ontario elections 2007.png and Image:Ontario2007.PNG? Bearcat ( talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pcposmall2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:GPO logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been generally accepted to only use the infobox to outline the details of the parties that held seats before or after the election. 117Avenue ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally accepted by whom? you? As Esn said in his response, the Greens presence was felt during the 2007 election and the party was included in all opinion polling. If you look to the 2008 federal election and the 2011 federal election as examples you will see my point. The Greens did not have an elected member prior to either of those elections and in 2008 they did not elect a member. Yet they were very much a factor running full slates and in 2008, getting a seat at the debates. You can also look to the British Columbia provincial election pages too dating back to 2001. Its just a basic point of information for readers looking to become informed to include all parties who mustered more than a small fraction of support. This isn't a partisan debate, this is an online encyclopedia. Political junky ( talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Green Party from the infobox. They did not win any seats in this election. They have never won a seat in any Ontario election and under the current system are unlikely to ever win a seat. While they did garner marginal popular support, I do not believe this warrants inclusion as a '4th party' in the description of this election. EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2007 Ontario general election. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2007 Ontario general election at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Should there be consistent standards for the opinion polls? Two SES polls currently show undecided voters, although the links also show stats with just committed voters. All other polls simply show committed voters. I think the SES polls and all future polls should just show committed votes as a consistent criterion. Readers can still check links and footnotes for varying details in each poll. The same logic applies to election results: spoiled ballots and non-voters usually aren't counted in percentage totals. G(A)IA, 2007.09.01 @ 01.53 UTC.
In an unrelated story, I think they might have one or two new ones out now, it's oct 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dofer49- ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me why my contribution was reverted as being of "bad faith" by Nat?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ontario_general_election%2C_2007&diff=155127801&oldid=155116595
Maybe I'm just new to this whole wikipedia thing, but I read over the page on "good faith" edits and Nat's decision puzzled me (especially considering that the 'good faith' page even had specific sections on dealing with new wikipedians, which I am).
Is adding a site with polling trends and a meta-analysis of seat projections for the Ontario election bad faith? Can somebody please explain to me what exactly is 'bad faith' about what I did?
The contribution was not causing "deliberate disruption just to prove a point." The contribution was not "playing games with policies." And the contribution -- adding the only site with a meta-analysis of the Ontario general election that I'm aware of -- is most certainly not intended as vandalism.
Nat seems to think that including the information in the analysis does more harm than good to the article than having it does.
Can I get some feedback from people as to what they think and/or how to go about reverting this change?
Ottawastudent 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am adding an external link to Paulitics Projection Page. I agree that their blog is not referencable material, but Paul's calculations using the UBC Antweiler Election Forecaster is the only current application. Similarly, the Swing Model is based on sound methodology. Neither of these projections is available on a consistent basis on the web, yet they are most valuable and insightful to those seeking such studies. Paul's two models were added last week to our 6-model avg at TrendLines based on their merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredhutter ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
the editor of the "paulitics" blog seems to think that a certain editor (nat) is only saying his site should not be included, because he is a tory. first of all, that makes me sick, and that comment made me lose all respect for the editor, as I myself am a tory. secondly, despite what I think about the editor, the blog does offer information that is not avilable on other sites, that being an analysis of predictions. This is something that is valuable as it's important to keep in mind the differing methodoligies. What's needed is not to target a single link, but to come up with a rule for all future elections about these kind of prediction/projection sites. so in summary. site = good, editor = bad, having no set rules to deal with these situations = worse 74.14.16.208 05:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed this as a B Class, given its detail and organization, although it really needs some more cleanup and prose. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Whos adding the candidate numbers for those parties? they haven't nominated anyone yet according to there websites and if they have tell me where to get the info because nobody is putting the parties candidates in the list by region. 70.54.2.165 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
both FP candidates announced on the forum Free Dominion Nickjbor 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes we'll see if the Cor party has become defunct and if the Freedom party runs less candidates then the libertarians!
74.14.147.223 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I know who the damn Green candidate for leeds-grenville is, the GPO just hasn't updated the page yet. Jeanie Warnock will even be at my house tomorrow where we'll start collecting signatures for the returning officer.
74.14.146.93 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been involved with the GPO/GPC since I was 12 years old, I'm sure thats more then you can say. Heres the news article from the Recorder and Times. That would be the Brockville newspaper. Where I live in the riding: http://newsfeed.recorder.ca/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=23697 Lets now assume that when I add a Green candidate to the list, i know what the hell i'm talking about alrighty.
Political junky 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the article, You need to read it to understand that yes, she is the candidate in the riding. shes also in the PROCESS of creating her own campaign site, I personally have a couple of signs up on my lot, and i'm sure if you contacted the GPO they can confirm Jeanie is actually the candidate as I was just on the phone with her a few minutes ago. You really shouldn't concern yourself with something I know all about and you've shown to me you know very little about.
Political junky 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, however not only am i involved with the party, not only involved with the CA, not only involved with the campaign to elect Jeanie Warnock, but also live in the riding with a sign supporting the candidate. So no, I don't expect superiority over every issue, but when it comes to my party, my riding, my candidate, and i'm being challenged by some one who knows absolutly nothing about her, the riding, or the campaign in leeds-grenville I question whos writting many of the articles on Wikipedia. Political junky 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Untrue, We placed candidates on this page even before an election was called. Jeanie is verified as the candidate with the Green Party of Ontario and will be submitting her information to elections ontario later today. Again, we've been adding candidates even before the election was called so you and I both know that its a load of dung saying they have to be registered in order to be on wikipedia. http://www.vote-green.ca/jeanie.warnock
I'd also like to note, you all thought Mark Raby was the Green candidate until a few days ago. I know Mark personally and he only expressed light interest in running, never once committing to run. Please contact the GPO if you don't trust me with the issue.
Political junky 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Would everyone please read the top of this page. Where it links to: What Wikipedia is not - a FORUM
Quoting from the page:
This means, this page is for discussion on how to improve the article. Debate as to who wins the elections should be taken elsewhere. Please keep in mind NPOV and SOAP -- Statsone 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm Nickjbor 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When placing an entry please sign them by placing 4 ~ at the end of your entry. Your user name and a time and time stamp will be added automaticcaly.
Also, when responding to another entry, use as many : (colon's) as needed to indent. This make it easier to read comments. -- Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
How should withdrawals be indicated? [1] -- Zanimum 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding all the ind's listed here http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm 74.13.125.185 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) that was me BTW. Nickjbor 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
self explained Political junky 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Another question about one of the new parties, On the Party chart special needs is listed as having two candidates however in the list of candidates there is only one, anybody know of the second candidate if any? I'd choose a darker grey for the party now to avoid having the same colour as the independents.
74.14.147.119 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There are no "smaller parties", only people like you trying to limit choice and frame the debate. 70.178.56.254 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have a completed list from Elections Ontario, we should split the article and make the Candidates List its own article. My suggestion is to link to the page from this article. The Ontario general election, 2007 is now 85KB, so it is rather big by Wiki standards. Comments? -- Abebenjoe 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think like the 2003, General election everything should stay on one page.
74.14.147.119 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
if this is allowed to stay this way, without candidates, then the candidates list from the 2003 ontario election will have to be moved, to stay consistant. as will the list from the 2007 quebec election, as quebec has more ridings then Ontario does. Nickjbor 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know theres only Danish (there leader) running, so why does it say 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.147.119 ( talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:NONDP.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the addition of this text to at least 2 candidates' table entry (Suzanne Fortin, Martin Hyde). Since wikinews looks very official and just about blends in with wikipedia, I wonder if those are fake entries and if so, should be removed asap? (I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if there is some arrangement with wikinews) Ottawahitech 08:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
An encylopedia should not be endorsing any one news source, regardless of who the founder of both is. Nickjbor 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has reverted this edit to a previous version:
(cur) (last) 21:18, 4 October 2007 70.178.56.254 (Talk) (62,178 bytes) (undo)
Elections are about the future, and choice. This article should not be used as a propaganda tool to frame the debate. A list of the leaders in parties that offer a candidate in every riding is just as relevant to the 2007 Election as leaders from past elections.
This topic is not about the current government, but about October 10th's Election.
I will be restoring my edit.
Further, the candidates were presented in alphabetical order, again, to present the topic in a more neutral manner.
Parties were placed in the following order, ommitting boilerplate words like "party" "ontario" and using the intended purpose of the Party's title (for example, "Special" instead of "People")
communist confederation family freedom green liberal libertarian progressive republican reform special —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Im going to remove that list which is now redundant due to the infobox. nat t a n g 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on the information so far, which party could be predicted to form the next government, based on the number of seat it will attain and the number of seats the other provincial parties will also attain? Please answer ASAP the elections are tomorrow in my area and I want to know if I'm voting for the majority
-- • Storkian • 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There is urgent need to collaborate on the Ontario election coverage article (also see, Results of 2005 British Columbia, Canada General Election) on Wikinews. Any help is appreciated from editors on Wikipedia. FellowWikipe dian 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't do this because I am a new user but if somebody could add a section about voter turnout (52.8% http://www3.elections.on.ca/internetapp/realtimehome.aspx?lang=en&channel_id={923146e7-4d81-42a8-99f0-e61f5ab50387}&lang=en) and compare it to previous years- important given the dissatisfaction with the central issues of the campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.249.202 ( talk) 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Just some statistical information as possible leads.
Reference.
The CBC headline reads, "McGuinty Wins Massive Majority", however of the 8.4 million eligible voters only 52.6 % or 4.4 million voters cast a vote, of these 42.6% or 790,810 cast a vote for a Liberal Candidate, and of these 23,566 cast a vote directly for Premier McGuinty, (50.04% of the votes in his riding) as all other ridings cannot vote for the party leader.
This leaves 47.4% of the eligible voters not voting, 57.4% of those that voted or 2,525,600 voters, a majority of voters, who did not vote for a Liberal Candidate in the province, and even in Mr. McGuinty's riding, 49.96% of voters in his riding did not vote for him.
The move to change the electoral system, to represent minority parties failed to pass by over 63% because the changes would give more power to non-elected party members, however if we look at the details of the current system there are other ways to make changes to a system that empowers a minority, in many cases one individual, who we call a Premier over the Majority.
Seems that more logical electoral reforms include the use of run-off elections (used by parties to elect the party leader), an opportunity for voting seperately for a Premier, and giving our elected representatives 'free votes' on every vote, by eliminating the dictatorial power to the Premier, as is the case in most Municipal councils and the position of the Mayor, who gets one equal vote on all votes.
If my numbers are correct of all eligible voters, 8.4 million, only 23,566 voted for the Premier, and that is .2 %; now that is not a system that can state that "a majority" of the vote supporting Mr. McGuinty, and in fact 57.81 % of all voters did not vote liberal in the province; odd what a parliamentary system can do to a free vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the political system in Ontario has one voting for the local rep only, there is no vote for the party leader, nor the party. (merely indirectly)
The leader with the most elected party representatives, in majority governments forms the government. A detail that is important since the elected representatives have little power in government as the Premier calls the shots.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be a great idea if someone could find the victory speach of Mr. McGuinty for future reference.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Target seats need to be updated desperatly, they follow 2003 results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.24.182 ( talk) 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The numbers don't add up on the results chart, we're about 8,000 votes over the vote count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political junky ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the results are inaccurate, we're saying on that chart that there were 9,000 more voters then there actually were. That is far more inaccurate then unofficial results. this isn't including the independent candidates, so actually, we're farther off then originally thought. 74.15.24.182 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Another note on numbers: I like the regional breakdown section, but the PC seats add up to 25, and they won 26. What seat wasn't counted? MJR ( talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Image:Ondpsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ontlibsmall.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me why we need Image:Ontario elections 2007.png and Image:Ontario2007.PNG? Bearcat ( talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pcposmall2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:GPO logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been generally accepted to only use the infobox to outline the details of the parties that held seats before or after the election. 117Avenue ( talk) 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally accepted by whom? you? As Esn said in his response, the Greens presence was felt during the 2007 election and the party was included in all opinion polling. If you look to the 2008 federal election and the 2011 federal election as examples you will see my point. The Greens did not have an elected member prior to either of those elections and in 2008 they did not elect a member. Yet they were very much a factor running full slates and in 2008, getting a seat at the debates. You can also look to the British Columbia provincial election pages too dating back to 2001. Its just a basic point of information for readers looking to become informed to include all parties who mustered more than a small fraction of support. This isn't a partisan debate, this is an online encyclopedia. Political junky ( talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Green Party from the infobox. They did not win any seats in this election. They have never won a seat in any Ontario election and under the current system are unlikely to ever win a seat. While they did garner marginal popular support, I do not believe this warrants inclusion as a '4th party' in the description of this election. EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)