Talk:2013 British Columbia general election/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: The move was already conducted. I am simply making a procedural close at this point. OCNative (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

British Columbia general election, 2013 → 40th British Columbia general election — As the election is not certain to be held in 2013, it should be at 40th British Columbia general election. User:117Avenue, in reverting to British Columbia general election, 2013, explained that he was following a naming convention. In fact, future election articles generally don't take the year of the future election until the year is certain, i.e., when it becomes impossible for an election to be held in any other year, unless an early election can only be triggered by a highly unusual circumstance (such as German federal elections). Not only is an election before 2013 possible, it appears almost certain to occur this year. Most elections would use the form "Next X election", but it would make sense to follow the Canadian federal example and call this one by its ordinal. -Rrius (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does BC have a fixed election act. PS: I note the Federal fixed election act was breached in 2008 & so these new acts don't seem iron clad. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. BC was the first to have fixed election dates, in 2001. I don't see how an election is likely this year, it isn't a minority government, like the federal one. All the fixed election dates that I have come across, use the year in the title. 117Avenue (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as there's a majority government & thus no chance of a non-confidence motion passing. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: Have you two been ignoring BC politics completely? Apparently, the chances of there being an election this year have decreased somewhat because of the federal election, but Clark has been suggesting she would call one since at least her being picked for leader. -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, BC doesn't have true fixed-term parliaments. Like the federal act, the Constitution Act (s. 23) provides an out for the LG to dissolve the Legislative Assembly "when the Lieutenant Governor sees fit". That is not a strong fixed-term system, and in any event, being the same as the federal system, future BC elections should be named the same way as federal ones. -Rrius (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Harper showed how weak the Federal fixed-terms Act was in 2008. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I'm no longer certain about this fixed election dates. Apparently, former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh has recommended that Premier Christy Clark call a snap election, within the year. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the federal election should be used as an example, if it wasn't a minority government, there wouldn't have been an election 17 months before the prescribed date. I am worried that this may set a precedent, or get half done, and then encounter resistance at another province, after all, the next Ontario and New Brunswick elections could be called before their scheduled dates. 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But why would Dosanjh make such a recommendation, when Clark has a majority government? GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as there's no 100% guarentee, that the 40th election will occur in 2013. Dosanjh's recommendation to Premier Clark, show that the Premier can call a snap election regardless of the fixed election act. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose no 100% guarantee Captain America: The First Avenger will be released yet it has a page. Moving it based on these arguments would assume the violation of law, which is very biased & non-neutral POV. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a violation of the law, they can call an election at any time. 117Avenue (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it we should shoot for a brighter line for our rule. I think basing the decision of how to name the articles on our impression of how stable the current government is puts us in a difficult position. Minority parliaments were pointed to as unstable, but how about coalitions? Some are quite strong, but others are weak and liable to collapse. Would we make choices about whether we felt a coalition would succeed or fail or would we assume all coalitions are weak, which puts us in danger of making a political point for one party or other? And what about minority parliaments with confidence-and-supply agreements? They are coalition-like, but they seem to work rather well in New Zealand.
 * Support if we are to make a new naming convention. I was torn between a naming convention, and WP:CRYSTAL, but I feel that crystal shall prevail, and that New Brunswick should be tacked onto this discussion.
 * New Brunswick general election, 2014 → 38th New Brunswick general election
 * 38th New Brunswick general election → 38th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation)
 * This will create a new naming convention, which will apply to the next federal election, as well as the next articles for the five provinces that are scheduled for later this year. 117Avenue (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It already is the convention for federal elections, and elections everywhere else in the world. Also, staying specifically with this election, Dosanjh is not the only one whose talked about an election. Here is an article mentioning what I read throughout the leadership campaign: she seems to be leaning toward a snap election. -Rrius (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And here is one saying what I've avoided saying because I've been too lazy to go back and search for articles from the election: Clark has committed to an early election'. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius] (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I weakly support this proposed move, I do not think that it should apply to situations like New Brunswick general election, 2014. I think that there are two scenarios to evaluate in jurisdictions with fixed-date legislation.  If there is a minority government, obviously history shows that the government is not likely to survive 4 years.  Second, if the premier changes mid-term it is not uncommon for the new premier to seek his or her own mandate.  However, if there is a majority government with no leadership change, I think that it is appropriate to assume that the fixed-election law will be followed. - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The New Brunswick election is over three years away, how do we know that the premier won't change, or that a political change hits the province? We can't say that the election will take place in 2014. 117Avenue (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with Germany's articles being at fixed dates because, although it is possible to trigger an early election, it is extraordinarily unlikely. There are two ways to kill a German government: a constructive vote of no confidence and failing to support a vote of confidence. Only the latter can trigger an election because to vote no confidence, an alternative Chancellor must be proposed. Gerhard Shroeder did in fact intentionally lose a vote of confidence in 2005, thereby triggering an election, but I'm still willing to accept that Germany comes about as close to locking in a fixed-term as possible in a parliamentary system. The proposed system for the UK also seems acceptable. Early elections would be called if two-thirds of MPs vote to do so or if no government is put in place within a short time after a vote of no confidence.

BC and Canada are different. Both allow an escape hatch reserving power in the hands of the Crown to dissolve the legislature early. That undercuts the fixed-term nature of what is supposed to be a fixed-term parliament. Where there is some real structural limit on the power of the Executive to call an early election, naming articles with the election year makes sense, and more sense the more limited the Executive is. Where the law merely sets out an expectation of how things should work but still gives the Executive power to act as it sees fit, mere parroting the expectation seems foolhardy to me.

All in all, I think we should admit that parliamentary systems cannot have perfectly fixed terms like the US does, but find some line between perfect fixed terms and terms utterly at the Executive's discretion. I don't know exactly where the line should go, but I can't see how Canada and BC could be put on the fixed side of that line when the Executive retains unchecked power to ignore the fixed-term aspect of the law. -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since 42nd Canadian federal election is already using this convention, this should be closed as move. 117Avenue (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

HST
Could someone insert a paragraph explaining the HST in the background section? It may or may not end up being an election issue, but it is clearly a part of how the election is viewed now and might affect the election's timing. I would do it myself, but I would have to study up on the issue. -Rrius (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not too proud to resort to begging. Ideally, a section would explain what the HST is, its introduction in BC, why it is unpopular and how it brought down Campbell, the referendum (including the change in timing from September to June), and Christy Clark's proposed amendments. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Polling
Can someone explain why the polling dates use a sort template when the table isn't sortable? -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Article should be proof read and edited !
The introduction to BC general election, 2013 (sic) needs to be proof read, reworded and edited!

In the first place General Election should be capitalized. Secondly stating the Liberal party formed Government prior to this general election is confusing. The Liberals may win the election and then the tense is incorrect. Such generalities should not be in the introduction but, in a more formal and detailed background section. Speaking of Adrian Dix, Clark and Gordon Campbell in the introduction is unnecessary and confusing and once again is better place in a different article or in a detailed background section.

I find the article somewhat biased but, am not sure if this is intentional or sloppy writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.86.61 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be wrong in every respect. "General election" is not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalized. It's funny that you attempt to point that out as a mistake, but couldn't even get the spacing right when you wrote the heading for this section. How can you expect us to take you seriously when you put a space in "proofread" and use an exclamation mark as though this were French?


 * The article as it stands is about an election that will happen in the future; once time passes, the information and tenses will be updated accordingly. Your inability to understand why background might be important is just your problem, not ours.


 * Finally, your gripe about bias is pretty much pointless when you don't explain what passages you are talking about and what makes them seem to you to be biased. Not even bothering to point out the direction of the bias makes me wonder why you bothered to write that sentence at all. Before accusing others of sloppy writing, you should at least try to make sure you've actually made your point (and afterwards, use punctuation to end your sentence). -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of non-elected candidates
I see that, with the exception of two party leaders and a noted academic, none of the other non-elected (non-incumbent) candidates have Wikipedia entries. After a Google search, it would appear that there is some justification for creating entries for a few of these candidates. Before doing so, however, I'd like to ask if there is some notability criteria that has been applied that has prevented pages being created for the bulk of the non-incumbent candidates. Radinbc (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:POLITICIAN. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There was also Michelle Stilwell, Judy Darcy, George Heyman, and Gabriel Yiu. →maclean (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Campaign Research polls
A new opinion poll by Campaign Research has been added to the table. How do we feel about including this pollster's data considering that they were recently censured by the MRIA for conducting a misleading survey in a Montreal federal riding? Personally, I'm leaning against it. -Undermedia (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be for the removal of Campaign Research. Their lack of ethics is utterly unacceptable for a polling firm - and until they can prove themselves in the upcoming election, I'd remove their polling data from all opinion poll tables across Wikipedia. █  EMARSEE   00:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Our feelings about the organization's ethic or methodology shouldn't factor into the decision on whether to include their poll. Were the results of the polls published in a reliable secondary source? maclean (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This Huffington Post article mentions it. -Undermedia (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any further thoughts on this? I'm not necessarily against including this poll, but in response to Maclean25's comment, I would however clarify that this isn't merely a matter of our subjective feelings about the pollster; a censure by the MRIA constitutes an official reprimand of their professional practices, thus there is a real basis for being wary of this pollster. That's why I brought this up in the first place. -Undermedia (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any strong feelings one way or the other. There is no obligation to keep it in (it doesn't seem to have been picked up by the mainstream media and there are already lots of polls in the article) but I don't see any harm in keeping it if someone wants it in. maclean (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's leave it in. It will result in some highly erratic-looking movement in the graph, but that's happened before. The report hints that this is the first in a series of polls Campaign Research intends to conduct leading up to the election, so it will be interesting to see if their subsequent polls are equally out of step with most other pollsters or whether their results come closer to the "consensus". -Undermedia (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)