Talk:2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 2

Infobox inclusion criteria
You tell me to discuss it here but you haven't added anything yet. Again, my contention is that 1 single riding isn't a good enough gauge to support and can't be counted on; a single vote could mean being included in this list? It should be based on popular support, or perhaps points, but not the number of ridings a candidate got. I would favor deleting Raitt since her vote share was much lower than the other candidates' or if we are to include her, we can make it with all 14 of them on the ballot even though that would have to take up far too much space. I didn't want to restart another reversion war with you so I brought it here but if we can't agree, we can add them in to the list, for now. Ramires451 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My reasoning for wanting to include Raitt is that the infobox also includes a map, and since Raitt won several ridings, she is included on the legend in the map, so it only makes sense to include her in the infobox as well. Any other division is arbitrary, unless we just go with the top two candidates. I don't see why drawing the line before Raitt makes any more sense than drawing the line any where else. What makes her so special? -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally, we include all the candidates in the infobox for leadership elections. The only reason we haven't here is there are more candidates than there are allowable positions. I think we should include as many as we can fit in, i.e., 9. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I certainly do respect your argument, but you understand my point that ridings won doesn't mean to support? Besides, the map is nice but not necessary, and there certainly isn't any obligation to include it inside the infobox. Even if so, it doesn't have the same requirements as what's above it. As to your question, the reason why I'm saying Raitt should not be added is because, since we're looking at first-round results anyway (when all candidates were still in, before no one had been eliminated, and some people presumably didn't make any second choices) you can see from the results that there's a bunch of 5 candidates grouped around 7-10 percent or so. And then going further down, Raitt is at just over 3% so if you catch my wind that it would make more sense just to cut it there, otherwise it is really sort of unfair at least in the eyes of some. Now I understand maybe first-round support isn't the only standard but if you can indeed come up with something else that's good and works well with everyone that accurately represents each one's influence and their importance to this campaign, I'm all for it. It's just that ridings I think isn't a very good indicator since the smallest riding only had 8 Conservative members, and so you could sort of get just, say 2 or 3 votes to win a riding. Also, of note, though the gap there is large and that's why I would choose anything like maybe 5% support to show for it, we're still not including any candidate with a one and greater share than Raitt, and so that could also possibly play into the argument (for example someone theoretically running second in each district who gets more votes than anyone else but isn't included) and doesn't exist, and there is a clear if not substantial difference between her 3.34% and the next, Blaney's 1.26, unlike if we were to choose randomly, say 10 candidates which might give Alexander over with 1.12 but not O'Leary with 1.07 percent. Still, as Hungarian Phasebook said, that wouldn't be too good an idea since well we can't have a lot of controversy over who's in when all of them are, but 14 would just make it unnecessarily huge for an opening section. Besides, why 9 other than the artificial "limit" you can give? If it had been 5 instead, would you just give the 5 highest? What about 2? Or negative 10? What I mean to say is we should have a strong idea that works no matter the circumstance and in my own opinion I think Leitch, Lemieux, etc. with over 7 percent is good but not Raitt with 3, would be my take. Your opinions? Ramires451 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I know there is a bit of a gap between 7th and 8th place, but drawing the line there is still arbitrary. I don't mind expanding it to the top 9 candidates (as that looks better for aesthetic reasons), though we wouldn't have a colour for Blaney, as he's not on the map. I realize that basing the infobox exclusively on the map would be problematic as a hard and fast rule, as the last place candidate could've hypothetically won a riding. But the same thing could happen in a general election, and we usually include all parties that win seats in an infobox. Anyways, the point is moot, because the top 8 candidates won ridings, and the bottom 5 did not. While a map isn't necessary of course, we have a nice map, so might as well include everyone represented on the map in the infobox. If they get a colour on the map, they should have that colour and a place in the infobox. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with cutting of anyone not on map = won no riding. If you can't carry your home riding they are an "also ran". Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fun fact, Trost didn't win his own riding; but he won plenty of others. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, I was obviously speaking generally as usually your own people vote for you. The winner here seems to be lots of people's second choice, or at least that is how ranked ballets often shake out. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Complaints about vote
This story seems to be developing daily. Does it merit a section? "Top Bernier adviser calls Tory leadership vote a ‘fiasco’". Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be notable to the story and covered by major media outlets. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is now on CBC as well. It seems to be an important part of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420130940/http://www.timescolonist.com/detailed-questionnaire-greets-would-be-conservative-leadership-candidates-1.2225400 to http://www.timescolonist.com/detailed-questionnaire-greets-would-be-conservative-leadership-candidates-1.2225400
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Kdd2b8Bf?url=http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/about/governance/leitch.aspx to http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/about/governance/leitch.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)