Talk:2008 Canadian federal election/Archive 1

Angus Reid
Anyone else a little skeptacle of these online polls from Angus Reid? Seem a little wonky to me. With all the different polls this page is probably going to be too long soon enough anyway. Perhaps at the least we should indicate that the Angus Reid polls are online polls. Thoughts? 1130130 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Confidence Motions
I read that Harper announced a while back the Softwood Lumber vote (in the fall) would be a confidence vote, and all three opposition parties are opposed to the deal. However, just a day or so ago, David Emerson flip-flopped and said that if the industries don't approve it, they won't go ahead with the vote. However, isn't it quite possible the could have that vote, and still lose that vote triggering an election? As of now, with the latest Decima poll they are neck and neck. I haven't added this to the page, but should we? KFlack Wednesday, August 03, 2006, 08:25 (EST)
 * Coming up on the vote, it's unlikely that the government will fall. Although the Liberals are still pledged to oppose the bill, recent news reports say that the BQ is being coy about the issue.  Also, Quebec lumber producers signed on to the deal at a 95%+ rate. Majromax 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which means you should not speculate. SFrank85 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If, however, you have a credible source for that, feel free to add it -- *WITH* the source, of course. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Decima poll may be just an outlier considering that the Strategic Counsel poll which was conducted at the same time shows a very different result (Tories up by 9 points). I guess we need to wait for new polls to see if the Decima figures are indeed a new trend or not. 161.24.19.82 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next election could be later than January 2011
The rule is that parliament can't sit for more than 5 years. But the election can be called then, and then be held 2 months later. It could actually not sit for a while too ... and then there could be a war or something, that creates a special situation.

But I doubt we will get any later than 2009, and probably sooner. I can't see this parliament playing well together for long. Nfitz 06:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the next election will be called in 2007 after the Conservative Party decreases the tax from 7% to 6% ... see Diefenbaker for more details ... Stephen Harper will do this to get more seats (majority government) in parliament. - Schentler Tuesday, March 7, 2006, 04:58 (UTC)

NPOV/Unsourced
This article is far too speculative and lacking in sources, particularly when it comes to reasons why the governmetn may fall.Homey 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what it looked like when you commented but there are no mentions of why it might fall and I have sourced the particulars surrounding the lengths of parliaments. - Jord 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Conservative Record on Minority Parliaments
I was going to make some edits, but I thought I'd bring it here first. The wording discussing the history of minority governments is misleading.

From the article: Though the average length of a minority government in Canada is 1 year, 5 months and 22 days; the longest Conservative minority was just 6 months and 19 days.

The subject is minority government, but when the Conservative number is brought forward (6m, 19d) - that is, in fact, the length of how long parliament sat...and that was a full three months after the election. Diefenbaker's minority government was in excess of 9 months.

Anyway, I'll make a change if no one else does, but if the original author is reading, I'll leave first crack to him/her since they knew what they were trying to say with the article.

(FWIW, it was interesting - I had no idea that no Conservative minority had lasted a year, but that seems to be the case). --Otter Escaping North 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not actually the date that parliament sat, it is the date that the writs were returned - i.e. the earliest that parliament could sit. The descrepency in terms of time is the period between when the writ was dropped and when the election was held.  So the question would be - when do you consider the end of the government?  The three dates for the most recent election would be November 29 (when parliament was dissovled), January 23 (election day) or February 13, the return of the writs.  Using the model that the Parliament of Canada uses - Martin's minority would be deemed to have ended on November 29, while Harper's will have been deemed to have begun on February 13 with the interim time being "dead space".  I think that that is a reasonable measure - do you disagree? - Jord 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think referring to the government must include a POV outside parliament, but I realise that creates other confusion since the term "minority government" only makes sense from a parliamentary perspective. It might be one of those things that's difficult to make clear without a lot of technical explanation.


 * I honestly don't know what to suggest. You could say that Harper's minority government begins on February 13th, if that's when the writs are returned, but of course, he and his cabinet will be sworn in on February 6th - which would be the start of "the Conservative government."


 * Perhaps we can just quote the average time minority governments have sat (as taken from Parliament's web site) and say that Conservative governments have all sat for less than the average. Dunno - open to alternatives.  --Otter Escaping North 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, to answer your question more directly, I think Martin's government ends when he and his cabinet have been replaced (planned for February 6). Should such an issue arise - Martin is still PM, McLellan is stil Minister for Public Safety, etc.


 * Maybe the line Though the average length of a minority government in Canada is 1 year, 5 months and 22 days; the longest Conservative minority was just 6 months and 19 days. should just be changed to Though the average length of a minority parliament in Canada is 1 year, 5 months and 22 days; the longest Conservative minority was just 6 months and 19 days. Assuming, of course, that the change in terms keeps the numbers accurate.  --Otter Escaping North 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This makes sense, I'll make the change. Thanks for the help. - Jord 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claims
" Some pundits have suggested that whereas there have been two elections in less than two years, parties will be weary of voter fatigue and avoid causing an early election, however, the lessons of the minority governments of the 1960s suggest this will not be the case."

This isn't an acceptable passage - it's purely speculative and unsourced. If a pundit says something then quote him or her or paraphrase and footnote.

And what are the lessons of minority governments of the 1960s? This seems like original research (as well as quite incomplete). If there's a lesson then quote someone who has said what it is. Please, no more unsourced claims or references to anonymous gatherings of pundits. Homey 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey - in terms of the pundits speaking of voter fatigue - virutally every commentator who has commented on the timing of the next election has said this, it would be cumbersome to source them all, what would you recommend? I can expand unpon the 1960s - we had three elections in three years - something which, if you believe in the adage "history repeats itself", suggests that the punditry may be wrong about this. - Jord 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"virutally every commentator who has commented on the timing of the next election has said this"

Then that makes your task of identifying a commentator who has said this all the more easier, doesn't it? I don't understand why, despite several requests, you have refused to cite a source.

", it would be cumbersome to source them all, what would you recommend?"

Where have I said you have to source them all? Just cite one source (a credible source, ie a published journalist or an academic - not a blog).. and your "lessons of the sixties" bit is original research unless you can attribute it to someone. Homey 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Titles of Canadian General elections
Given the situation we are in now, and the potential of two elections in one year, the present method of numbering the election by year would break down and become confusing. Most of the media and the government in Canada styles the elections by their number IE the last was the 39th General election. Given the risk that under the Canadian political system, even with a move to fixed election dates, there could be two elections in one year I think this system needs to change. (2 elections in one year even with fixed election dates because no one is talking about eliminating the no confidence mechanism, meaning that the fixed election date would be on a formula, and only come to fruition in the light of a majority government.)--24.222.65.32 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The style of Canadian federal election, 2006 is the standard in Naming conventions so we would need to discuss a change there, however, in the instance of an unlikely event of two elections in the same year, there is precedent at UK general election, 1974 for what to do. - Jord 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlikely event? This is the likely event isn't it?  As discussed above, and at parliamentry website, Conservative minority governments have never lasted long.  From the start of Parliament to the fall of government, the longest lasted 132 days, the shortest 66 days, and the other one lasted 110 days; and these were all Parliments where the Conservatives held a greater percentage of seats than they do now!  If history is the best predictor of future events, then it will be surprising if Parliment lasts for more than 132 days before falling (and perhaps the only thing that might save it is an early summer recess!). Nfitz 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my view that it was unlikely because the Liberals will not have a leader in place until late this fall at the earliest and the Bloc have said they will prop the government up for the time being. That said, regardless of my opinion, the naming convention with year is the best method and, as we've seen in the UK example, can work fine in the cases where there are two elections in one calendar year. - Jord 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Liberals didn't have a leader in place when the Clark government fell either - same scenario. Sure Bloc says they will prop up government ... let's see which way they actually vote when push comes to shove on budget issues; will only work if Tories pay-off Quebec over child-care ... but will Tories risk alienating TROC by having the appearance of a pro-Quebec Tory-Bloc alliance.  Though I do agree with you about what to do. Nfitz 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In any event, as I said, my opinion (and yours for that matter) are not really relevant, the question here was whether or not to change the naming convention and I don't think that you are arguing in favour of a change? - Jord 18:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, I'm not in favour of a change. I just feel that expected scenario is another election this year, as a Tory minority government has never lasted more than 6 months (it's interesting to note that the shortest Liberal minority government, and there have been a few), are longer than the longest Tory minority government. Nfitz 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am well aware, I in fact a bit of revert fight with Homey on whether or not to include the fact that the Tory minorities have all been very short and was the first person to include that information  - Jord 20:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

French version
Is there a French version of this page ?
 * Looking at the French Wikipedia article on the 2006 election, I don't see any links to an article about the future election, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. I would suggest asking on the Talk page of that article. — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 16:15 (UTC)

There is no French version of this article. Until recently, there was no french article for any of the elections but the last one. I'm currently in the process of translating them all. I've almost finished the texts for most of the elections, but I have yet to translate the results tables for many of them (a time-consuming process), and of course I haven't even begun to start working on the articles about the associated Parliaments. If anyone here feels sufficiently comfortable in french to come over to fr.wikipedia to give me a hand, it would be most appreciated. There are only a handful of us working on Canadian politics articles at the best of times. (If anyone actually is interested, you can go to the fr:Projet:Canada talk page or my user talk page there for coordination.)

DH | 2¢ | 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you need some help translating, write me a message on my talk page. --DanCBJMS via 131.109.51.101 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much info on the 39th election
There is way too much information on the 39 Canadian Federal Election in this article... After all, there IS an article for the 39th election, where the info about it should go. --Deenoe 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing line
On May 30, 2006, the Conservatives tabled Bill C-16 which would amend the Canada Elections Act which would provide for fixed elections.

Huh? This needs to be reworded. Funnyhat 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comuzzi
He is listed as not running in the next election, but in actuality, he has not yet made the decision. He has a website (http://www.comuzzi.ca) and there is speculation that he might switch to Green Party. A campaign flyer was sent out within a week of being removed from the Liberals. It is covered in This TBSource article from 33 March, paragraph 18. Vidioman 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that Bill C-16 has been passed by the Senate
Would this mean that we would expect the election to be in 2009, not this year? --DanCBJMS via 131.109.51.101 14:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It means, if the opposition parties don't force an election (non-confidence vote), the 40th General Election will be in 2009. From now on, a Prime Minister can't call an Election. GoodDay 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- there's no need to reveal your IP address number. Your registered account is meant to hide it. GoodDay 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think royal assent (that's the Governor-General's consent), is to be given today. GoodDay 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in the text of the bill that anticipates an election held before 2009 and its consequences on fixed election dates after that. What happens if there is an election in 2008 and it's a majority government? Do we still have an election in 2009? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. In that scenerio, my guess is the 'four' year majority government mandate would still be maintained. The fixed election date would be moved to 2012. I'm not certain however. That bill may need an amendment. GoodDay 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kind of late for that, don't you think? I did have an email forwarded to the NDP critic in that department, but it doesn't look like any changes were implemented. Maybe the Conservatives don't really want electoral reform? ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the minority government falls before late 2009, and an early election is called, then the next election after that would not need to be held in October, 2009. According to this law, the next election should be held in the fourth October after an early election.  Here is the quote from the law:
 * "each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009."
 * The phrase "with the first general election ... being held on Monday, October 19, 2009" just seems illustrative, not prescriptive. The rule for determining an election date is alway relative to the last election, and it seems that the mentioning of the specific date of October 19, 2009 is just illustrating how the rule applies based on the last election, and confirming that the rule does apply starting from the date of the most recent election (held before this law came into effect).  --thirty-seven 04:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how it's illustrative in this instance. Sure, it says "being held" but, that's only illustrative if it uses it as an example, which it doesn't. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that a Canadian government may still be able to trigger early elections by engineering its own defeat in a motion of confidence, as happened in Germany under Kohl (1983) and Schröder (2005). James Pelayo 23:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, but there is no provision in the bill for that prior to 2009. It says the first election in the bill will happen in 2009.-- Earl Andrew - talk 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That interpretation is incorrect, see my comments below. Subsection (2) mentioned above only applies subject to Subsection (1), and Subsection (1) actually preserves the powers of the Governor General to call an early election at his/her discretion. The logical conclusion then is that, under existing law as amended by Bill C-16, a general election can still be held at any time between the last election and the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following the last election. Keep in mind however that, under existing law, the Governor General can also theoretically appoint anyone as PM (regardless of his/her being the leader of the plurality party in the House of Commons) and can actually dismiss the PM at his/her own discretion even when the PM retains the confidence of the House. Nevertheless, the GG does not normally use those powers because of well-established unwritten constitutional conventions. It may be the case then that a new unwritten constitutional convention will also emerge under which a sitting PM will never advise the GG to call an early election before the normal polling day unless his/her government is defeated in a vote of no confidence. That however remains to be seen. In any case, strictly speaking, bill C-16 introduces  only a default election date, but by no means a fixed election date (which would be in fact unconstitutional, see again comments below). 161.24.19.82 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth May
Should we keep 'Elizabeth May's image on this article? (even if the Green pary currently has no MPs?). I'd say yes. GoodDay 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, 68.148.61.68 is in charge of this page. He/she refuses to leave the Elizabeth May image there. Without discussing it here. GoodDay 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats to bad because every time its deleted its going back on. Just because the Greens don't have a seat doesn't mean they don't matter any more then the NDP. It doesn't matter how many seats the NDP have, they don't hold the balance of power, so basically they still don't matter. Elizabeth stays Political junky 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I sense an 'edit war' on the rise. PS- I support keeping 'Elizabeth May' image. GoodDay 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The balance of power is generally defined as having enough seats to shift a decision in parliament one way or the other. All three opposition parties (in the house) have that power.  The Greens obviously do not.  It's silly to pretend the Greens have the same kind of influence as the Libs, BQ or NDP. It's not a question of who 'matters' but of who has any power entrusted to them by Canadians.  Right now, four parties have some measure of power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.61.68 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I'd suggest all party leader images be deleted. There's no 100% guarentee, that Harper, Dion, Layton (aswell as May) will be leading their parties into that election. Therefore (again), we should removed all 'leader' images. GoodDay 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed all party leader images. It's crystal-balling (a Wikipedia no no), to presume these people will lead their parties into the 40th election. GoodDay 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When did the NDP ever matter? Well the answer is never except when they had 43 seats in the 80's 74.14.144.223 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask yourself that question the next time you visit a hospital. Or when it comes time to collect CPP. Or maybe when you watch your American friends go to the polls and many of them wonder why the only kind of beer available is either "Duff" or "Duff Lite" (same vat, different label). The NDP are a very important part of our democratic process in Canada. Almost every good idea that the Liberals have enacted as legislation over the years came from the NDP. And, by the way, so did the winner of the poll. So, the real answer to your question is that the NDP has always mattered, and has made a very positive difference for the 'average Canadian', ever since it was first created in 1961. If you plan to comment again in the future, please sign your posts and try to stick to comments geared to improving the quality of the article under discussion, rather than obnoxious comments like this one. In that spirit, I would like to commend the editor who most recently updated the table to include all currently registered parties. Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

candidates
Where did you find the number of candidates each party has nominated, I can't find that info, anywhere! Political junky 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't find them, check the pages 'history' for who did. GoodDay 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

August 21, 2007.
I have updated the number of nominated candidates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election#Results

Elections Canada's website keeps track of all officially nominated candidates, and thus this was the source I used. I used the search date parameters of January 1, 2006 - August 22, 2007. The (English) webpage is found at http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/reg/contest_search.aspx?textonly=false&lang=e

The NDP was listed as having been updated August 20, 2007 at 103 canadidates nominated. As of August 21, 2007, Elections Canada's website does not confirm this; it lists the NDP as having nominated 64 candidates. As I can't identify who updated the NDP numbers, I am posting this entry here, instead of sending it directly to the person who posted. Please varify a source of information for this data. --Can-eh-dian Redhead 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated the page based on information on this page: New Democratic Party candidates, 40th Canadian federal election. I assume it's ok to use a wikipedia page as a reference, otherwise, why are we here? Louarab 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the Wikipedia page New Democratic Party candidates, 40th Canadian federal election is unsourced as well. I chose a verifiable and neutral source to obtain my data - Elections Canada. If you can provide an equivalent source, I'm all for it. I'm just looking for accuracy and good research - something I hope all wikipedian strive for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob Traver (talk • contribs).

Yea but if any part of the wiki page is wrong, it will get corrected by other editors. That's the whole idea of wiki. There is little if any evidence that the list on that wiki page is inaccurate. Elections Canada is obviously not a great source if it's 40 candidates short. I doubt there are fourty errors on the NDP page. More likley, there are nominated candidates who have not yet registered with Elections Canada. Most candidates register after the writ is issued, so this isn't surprising.

I suspect the totals for the other parties are also low, but until we put together a list of candidates for the other parties (and the stubs are already up) we'll never know. But just because they are based on incomplete information from Elections Canada, doesn't mean the NDP numbers have to be too. Louarab 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill C-16 misinterpreted ?
I believe the text of Bill C-16 is being misinterpreted. The law clearly states and I quote:


 *  56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion. 

In other words, under Bill C-16, the Governor General (GG) is still empowered to dissolve Parliament and call an early election at any time he/she chooses, presumably under the advice of the PM. It is only in the absence of an early dissolution that the default (not fixed) election date applies, as stated in Section 56.1 (2):


 *  Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Note that a federal statute stripping the GG of the power to call an early election at his/her discretion would be unconstitutional because, under the constitution of Canada, any change to the GG's or the Queen's prerogatives require the approval not only of the federal Parliament, but also of the legislative assemblies of all 10 Canadian provinces. Note also that bill C-16 does not require that the government be defeated in a vote of no confidence before an early election can be called. It remains to be seen though if, as a matter of constititutional convention, future PM's will, as expected, refrain from advising the GG to dissolve Parliament prior to the "fixed" election date in the absence of a formal vote of no confidence. Nothing in the statutory law prevents however an early election from being called. 161.24.19.82 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Info Box should be removed
The new 'Info Box' is big, ugly, doesn't display well, and contains no useful information. On the contrary, it contains misleading information, while telling us nothing that can't already be found on this page. It should be removed.

Let's look at what is in the box:

- Pictures of the leaders. This is a good feature to have. But the current pictures are inconsistent as to format. They aren't all the same size; some are headshots, others aren't.

- Names of the leaders, names of the parties, number of seats held. ALL of this is already contained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election#Results In fact, the information is displayed better there: it lists the party first, then the leader. The Info Box suggests that the election is being contested by 5 individuals, who happen to have parties associated with them. That would make sense if we had directly-elected presidents, as is the case in, e.g. France or the USA. But in Canada it does not make sense. The party should be listed first.

- 'Seats needed'. This makes no sense at all. It doesn't even say *what the seats are needed for*. What it *means* is 'seats short of a majority'. But this is not explained. Anyway, it doesn't make sense because during the election, the Conservatives don't "need" an "extra" 29 seats, to add to their current 124, because they don't get to just keep the 124 and try to pick up extras. They start again from zero, at which point the number of seats "needed" is 155, not 29. There is no point at which the number 29 means anything -- except in a confidence vote in the House, at which point they need the support of 29 opposition members. This has nothing to do with the election per se, and doesn't belong here.

- Opinion polls. This is already contained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls -- where, quite responsible, ALL available opinion polls are listed. It is totally irresponsible to abstract out a single recent poll and give it undue prominence at the top of the page. It gives too much legitimacy to an arbitrary set of numbers -- readers are likely to assume that these support levels are relatively constant, which they are not. Much better to provide all the data in one place and let readers form their own conclusions.

In short, this Info Box adds NOTHING but confusion. Delete it. Olga Mavrokhordatos


 * Agreed. I say delete it as well. Ottawastudent (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't we have this same discussion a few months ago? This is not a discussion on current parliamentary seats held, or political parties in Canada. Remove the ugly box. HalifaxRage (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so far we have three in favour of removing the box and one opposed. Anybody else want to get in on this before we delete it?Ottawastudent (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said they were opposed? -ACL- (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was operating under the assumption that you opposed the box's removal, but I was only assuming. If I was mistaken, then that makes three in favour of getting rid of the box and nobody opposed.Ottawastudent (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just scroll up and read under the "Elizabeth May" heading - this discussion was already held. I see no point in reopening it - as previously determined, it is premature to assume these people will lead their parties in a future election. HalifaxRage (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't oppose getting rid of the box. I came directly to the discussion when I first saw the ugly thing. My edits were only to try to make it look better. If the discussion has been had, then it can just be gotten rid of, I think. It would be fairly easy to add the box back in once election time actually comes around and we know all of these leaders will be with the parties still. -ACL- (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the info box. It now only shows the two who, at this time, make the most sense to have the chance of being elected. I've removed the "seats needed" as well, it was unnecessary. I think it looks a bit better now. And cleaner. Pictures of the minor candidates can be provided elsewhere on the page if people think its necessary. -ACL- (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now the box is even worse than before. This isn't America or Australia where we have a two-party duopoly.  You don't get to pick and choose who gets featured and who has a chance at winning before the writ even gets dropped.  No need to vote everybody, ACL from wikipedia decided he already knows who stands a chance and who doesn't.  I say delete it.Ottawastudent (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to say I know better or voice my own opinions. You don't know that I support either party. But people were complaining that the previous box was too ugly. So I tried to change it and simply feature the two current frontrunners in the poll and I said the rest could be featured more in depth on the rest of the page. It would be easy to change the info box, if hypothetically, the NDP went up in the opinion polls above the Liberals. If you don't like it. Erase it yourself. -ACL- (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made one last edit. It shows all five leaders now, simply with their picture, name, party and party colours. Without all unnecessary information. It would be great if somebody would be able to move the bottom two photos so all five were better proportioned. Also, all pictures go well together except for Gilles Duccepe's. I found a better sized one for Layton, but couldn't for Duccepe. -ACL- (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

'The infobox is not an option''. Proper Wikipedia format actually requires an infobox at the top of every article on any topic, to summarize the most essential information — the only reason not all articles on Wikipedia have infoboxes yet is because they haven't been added to all articles yet, not because they're somehow optional. And additionally, a poll of this type must be left open for seven days and posted to WP:CWNB; you are not permitted to conduct a two-day unadvertised poll and then act on it as soon as you have more yes votes than no. That is not how Wikipedia consensus works.''' Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one am not against the box itself, and actually am very much in favour of them as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, however, including current party leaders on a page for a future election is premature. The current incarnation of the info box (with information relating it to previous elections) is far more useful and relevant. HalifaxRage (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox format has to be standard across comparable articles. That is, this article can't have an entirely different infobox format on it than election #39 does, and it can't have a different infobox format on it than Next United Kingdom general election does. The original infobox is the standard format that's expected on all articles about elections that haven't taken place yet; it's a straight variation on the standard infobox that's expected on all past elections. And there's no prematurity to including the current party leaders; if one of them steps down, all you do is change the box at that time to reflect who the new leader is. Just look, frex, at the UK election's infobox before and after Menzies Campbell stepped down as leader of the LibDems on October 15. It's not that complicated, and we can't deem Canada somehow exempt from Wikipedia standardization efforts just because a "consensus" of three editors didn't personally like the standard infobox. We can adapt the standard infobox if we have special needs that aren't properly covered by it (look at any Australian election, frex), but three editors can't arbitarily exempt us from it. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bearcat that there should be a standard infobox for all Canadian elections articles and prefer that it be a universal standard like Infobox Election. I also agree with the concern here that it is less than ideal right now though I'm not sure how to improve it. I am sure, however, that discussion should take place at Template talk:Infobox Election and Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion rather than isolating this article from all others. Double Blue (Talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The new InfoBox, with the Elections Canada logo, and the list of all registered parties, is much better. Olga Mavrokhordatos

There are several issues that we need to separate. First, whether all future elections articles should contain the same infobox; in my opinion, all future elections should use a standard infobox. Second, what form a future elections infobox should take. For that, let's first determine what information we wish to present to the reader about future elections, and then work forward from there. The advantage of Infobox Election is that it maintains consistency across all elections, past, present and future. I'm not opposed to a separate template to be used for all future elections, but if one is created, it should be usable for other nation's elections too. (I don't think either template does a good enough job - Nat's template has too many past election links, where a link to List of Canadian general elections would suffice, but some of the content and layout is good; Infobox Election doesn't have enough useful info, but allows future election articles to be more closely associated with past election articles.)

I guess I'm taking the middle position here. I propose we determine what info we want to display using a future election infobox, determine whether Infobox Election can do the job, and if not, modify it to do so, or selectively merge Nat's template and Infobox Election into a new infobox with a standard format displaying info we deem necessary for such an infobox. Mind matrix  20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Elections Canada logo fails fair use guidelines
There is no way that the use of the Elections Canada logo in this article passes Non-free content criteria. Besides failing criteria 3(a), it clearly fails 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I would have removed it myself but it seems the infobox shows   when you remove that line, so if someone could find an appropriate image to put there that follows policy that would be appreciated (I can see how much trouble there was with the infobox previously :) ).  Telso (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given no action/disagreement, I'm going to err on the side of not violating copyright (as opposed to having a slightly prettier article) and remove the image from the infobox. If someone has an idea for a good free image, go ahead and add it. Telso (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)