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. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Results of the 2011 Canadian federal 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 Results of the 2011 Canadian federal election at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page needs updating. It is written often in future tense. This should be revised to refer to facts about history, with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredsprite ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The article states "Green Party leader Elizabeth May won in her riding, becoming the first Green Party candidate elected to a governmental body in Canada, and in North America." However, John Eder was a Green Party member elected to the Maine House of Representatives in November of 2002 and served until 2007. As such, I suggest that the "and in North America" part be removed. 72.224.251.28 ( talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This article states that he was "the first Green elected to state-level office in the United States", when he was first elected. He is a member of the
Maine Green Independent Party, (which is the Maine affiliate of the US Green Party) an official political party in Maine. His first election results are
here, under District 118.
Perhaps instead of saying May was the first Green elected to a "governmental body" it could say "national governmental body", in which case May would be the first such elected person in North America.
72.224.251.28 (
talk)
23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. For accuracy only, I'll link to his 2002 results here,(in district 32) my earlier link was to his second election. 72.224.251.28 ( talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Some recent versions included (sourced but not credible) reports that the Bloc Quebecois loss represents some kind of collapse of separatist support as such in Quebec. If this is going to be included, then the other explanations must also be included, especially as open separatists were interviewed on CBC Radio As it Happens supporting the NDP. It is just as legitimate to represent the Bloc loss as a withdrawal of support by core separatists to focus on the provincial election and referendum, or an internal squabble on tactics, or even a conspiracy to elect a very alien government to Ottawa with almost no Quebec representation and almost no power to oppose, or get some inexperienced NDP MPs in place.
If there is anything said at all about the implications of the Bloc loss for sovereignty/separation all of those theories must be mentioned as they are all flying around. You can refer to one "dominant" theory in English Canada if you want but the French speaking press reports the implications of the loss very much differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.107.147 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Some recent versions included reports of Liberal-NDP merger speculation or a "two party system". This cannot be rationally raised without also raising the problems of the internal NDP structure, of impact on provincial parties (the NDP's structure makes provincial mergers mandatory, unless they abandon it which they're unlikely to do after such a victory) and historical Liberal/NDP animosity. It also cannot be even noted without also mentioning the spotty history of the electoral reform failures in Canada since anti-merger people often hold hope for reform.
There's a good argument to shove all that stuff off into a section of Liberal Party of Canada but if so then any speculation about "two party system" must be extremely carefully framed to avoid simply republishing nonsense columnists or editorialists write with various agendas.
It's just as likely that the Liberals will survive in some geographic areas through vote swapping, which worked in their favour in the 2011 election as most swaps were to keep Liberal incumbents in place and elect NDP challengers to Conservatives (only). This path forward is already happening and is not speculative like the "merger" ideology.
Also blanket assumptions that the Liberal vote simply goes NDP without a Liberal option must be avoided. Back any such claim with evidence from the statistics themselves, which is the point of having this article in the first place. For instance:
If you really feel you need a source for "there was never any suggestion by any poll or pundit that the Liberals could form a majority government in 2011" or "most statistics suggest that a clear majority of Liberals prefer the NDP or Greens as their second choice" it should take approximately one minute each to find them using Google, but some things are common knowledge. Proving that trend is still valid from statistics is not original reporting if you actually show the entire logic, it's just inference.
Inference is not original reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.107.147 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
For now, the compromise should be to move the analysis and implications to the end, reframe it a bit to be clear that it is outlining arguments that already appear in the press, and seek references for a wide range of speculative scenarios. Not to favour just one "two party system" or "a victory for federalism" up front because they happen to be popular with someone a week after the election. If you want to suggest that something other than the actual numbers as affected by provable pairing and tactical voting, Liberal-NDP compatibility/merger and Quebec sovereignty belongs on the list of the analyzed topics or implications, do so below in the context of the text (copied from current edit):
Shouldn't the defeated incumbent be the featured part of the defeated incumbents table? If no one objects, I'd like to put the defeated person in the first column and arrange by party of the incumbent rather than party of the victor. - Rrius ( talk) 05:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In the summary of the NDP results it says the party is a true national party but I fail to see how that is true without having a seat in Saskatchewan. As well why is it interesting to note they now hold Jean Chretien's old seat? It was held by the Bloc Quebecois prior to the NDP win and it is not like they beat Chretien himself. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably being a bit picky but in the opening paragraph it says that this will be the first "centre-right majority government" since 1988 but the Liberal Party of the early 1990's, atleast, were centre-right, probably more so then the current Conservatives. As well how do we know they will be centre-right? They could end up not a being centre-right at all. I think re-wording is in order. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
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. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Results of the 2011 Canadian federal 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 Results of the 2011 Canadian federal election at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page needs updating. It is written often in future tense. This should be revised to refer to facts about history, with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredsprite ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The article states "Green Party leader Elizabeth May won in her riding, becoming the first Green Party candidate elected to a governmental body in Canada, and in North America." However, John Eder was a Green Party member elected to the Maine House of Representatives in November of 2002 and served until 2007. As such, I suggest that the "and in North America" part be removed. 72.224.251.28 ( talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This article states that he was "the first Green elected to state-level office in the United States", when he was first elected. He is a member of the
Maine Green Independent Party, (which is the Maine affiliate of the US Green Party) an official political party in Maine. His first election results are
here, under District 118.
Perhaps instead of saying May was the first Green elected to a "governmental body" it could say "national governmental body", in which case May would be the first such elected person in North America.
72.224.251.28 (
talk)
23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. For accuracy only, I'll link to his 2002 results here,(in district 32) my earlier link was to his second election. 72.224.251.28 ( talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Some recent versions included (sourced but not credible) reports that the Bloc Quebecois loss represents some kind of collapse of separatist support as such in Quebec. If this is going to be included, then the other explanations must also be included, especially as open separatists were interviewed on CBC Radio As it Happens supporting the NDP. It is just as legitimate to represent the Bloc loss as a withdrawal of support by core separatists to focus on the provincial election and referendum, or an internal squabble on tactics, or even a conspiracy to elect a very alien government to Ottawa with almost no Quebec representation and almost no power to oppose, or get some inexperienced NDP MPs in place.
If there is anything said at all about the implications of the Bloc loss for sovereignty/separation all of those theories must be mentioned as they are all flying around. You can refer to one "dominant" theory in English Canada if you want but the French speaking press reports the implications of the loss very much differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.107.147 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Some recent versions included reports of Liberal-NDP merger speculation or a "two party system". This cannot be rationally raised without also raising the problems of the internal NDP structure, of impact on provincial parties (the NDP's structure makes provincial mergers mandatory, unless they abandon it which they're unlikely to do after such a victory) and historical Liberal/NDP animosity. It also cannot be even noted without also mentioning the spotty history of the electoral reform failures in Canada since anti-merger people often hold hope for reform.
There's a good argument to shove all that stuff off into a section of Liberal Party of Canada but if so then any speculation about "two party system" must be extremely carefully framed to avoid simply republishing nonsense columnists or editorialists write with various agendas.
It's just as likely that the Liberals will survive in some geographic areas through vote swapping, which worked in their favour in the 2011 election as most swaps were to keep Liberal incumbents in place and elect NDP challengers to Conservatives (only). This path forward is already happening and is not speculative like the "merger" ideology.
Also blanket assumptions that the Liberal vote simply goes NDP without a Liberal option must be avoided. Back any such claim with evidence from the statistics themselves, which is the point of having this article in the first place. For instance:
If you really feel you need a source for "there was never any suggestion by any poll or pundit that the Liberals could form a majority government in 2011" or "most statistics suggest that a clear majority of Liberals prefer the NDP or Greens as their second choice" it should take approximately one minute each to find them using Google, but some things are common knowledge. Proving that trend is still valid from statistics is not original reporting if you actually show the entire logic, it's just inference.
Inference is not original reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.107.147 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
For now, the compromise should be to move the analysis and implications to the end, reframe it a bit to be clear that it is outlining arguments that already appear in the press, and seek references for a wide range of speculative scenarios. Not to favour just one "two party system" or "a victory for federalism" up front because they happen to be popular with someone a week after the election. If you want to suggest that something other than the actual numbers as affected by provable pairing and tactical voting, Liberal-NDP compatibility/merger and Quebec sovereignty belongs on the list of the analyzed topics or implications, do so below in the context of the text (copied from current edit):
Shouldn't the defeated incumbent be the featured part of the defeated incumbents table? If no one objects, I'd like to put the defeated person in the first column and arrange by party of the incumbent rather than party of the victor. - Rrius ( talk) 05:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In the summary of the NDP results it says the party is a true national party but I fail to see how that is true without having a seat in Saskatchewan. As well why is it interesting to note they now hold Jean Chretien's old seat? It was held by the Bloc Quebecois prior to the NDP win and it is not like they beat Chretien himself. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably being a bit picky but in the opening paragraph it says that this will be the first "centre-right majority government" since 1988 but the Liberal Party of the early 1990's, atleast, were centre-right, probably more so then the current Conservatives. As well how do we know they will be centre-right? They could end up not a being centre-right at all. I think re-wording is in order. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)