Talk:Results of the 2011 Canadian federal election

This page is out of date
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)

Green Party
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)
 * Do you have a source for that? All the stories I've seen (and the referenced used in the article) state that she was the first elected Green Party candidate in North America. Ravendrop 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, if there is a source for Eder, I'm happy to change. It may also be a case of technicality, if Eder was considered an independent for some reason. Resolute 22:17, 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)
 * Fair enough. Change made. Cheers, Resolute 23:20, 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)
 * May is still the first Green Party candidate elected to a governmental body in Canada though. 117Avenue (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Quebec separation speculation
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)

Liberal future and "merger" speculation
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:


 * Still, most statistics suggest that a clear majority of Liberals prefer the NDP or Greens as their second choice and shift to them more easily than to the Conservatives; Harper gained only about 2% of popular vote over 2008 from the 7% Liberal loss;  The other 5% plus a Bloc 4% and Green 3% dip, accounts for all of the NDP's 12% gain.  See statistics below.  The remaining 19% Liberal voting population were evidently not afraid of a Liberal-NDP coalition or merger as there was never any suggestion by any poll or pundit that the Liberals could form a majority government in 2011.  Thus they could reasonably be assumed to swing NDP by even more of a ratio than 5/7 if deprived of any Liberal option on the ballot.

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)


 * None of this has anything to do with this article. What this article is about is the results of the election, that is to say, what the voters actually did, not the implications of the election for various parties. The parts about electoral reform and vote pairing are so far from the subject of the article that it is odd that they were ever added and absurd that they were re-added. -Rrius (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you include any mention of "two party system" which is pure speculation, then it is not possible to omit mention of the actual things that really did happen (vote swapping/pairing) that really did provably affect results, and also omit mention of the most commonly proposed alternative to that "two-party" proposal. You are clearly biased in favour of this speculative "two party" stuff.
 * Beyond that, it is not Wikipedia's place to editorialize. Resolute 15:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To delete mention of what really happened that really affected the vote counts (vote pairing), and leave speculation ("two party") in place, is to "editorialize" in a far worse fashion. Reverting this obviously non-NPOV edit.


 * Please move the text you wish to debate/discuss/delete to the talk page instead of simply deleting it and claiming that your speculation ("two-party") is neutral while what actually affected the vote count ("vote pairing") and the common solution to 39.6% false majorities ("electoral reform") is not. That doesn't stand up to scrutiny and it will be obvious in any actual debate on that on the talk page.

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):
 * I've removed the text from this page. It is still available in article's page history, including this edit, which shows the text after I did my best to remove the worst of the POV, OR, and crystal ball aspects of your addition. The fact is that what you want to add is beyond the scope of the article, violates several of rules of Wikipedia, and is poorly written. There is no good reason to include the text at all, so adding it at the end instead of the beginning is no compromise at all. The next step here is for you to learn more about how Wikipedia operates. You have already been given links to read up on Wikipedia's central policies and told at your talk page that you need to sign your contributions at talk pages by adding four tildes ( ~ ), but you have ignored both completely. Your opinion that vote pairing is what really effected the election is just that: opinion. In fact, if there had been significant vote pairing, it is hardly likely there would be a Conservative majority now. Anyway, you said that taking out your pet theory but leaving in "two party" was "editorializing in a far worse fashion". You are wrong. What you wrote intended to convey that vote pairing was hugely important. What is there about the two-party system only says that experts on the topic have questioned whether it might be the future. A citation is provided to an article substantiating the claim. So what you want to do is offer opinions and speculate about the future of vote pairing, electoral reform, and parties. All the article does now is note that some experts are wondering whether a two-party system is inevitable. Those two things are so wildly different that if you can't see the difference, there's a problem. If that one sentence about the possibility of a two-party system is the ting that has driven all of this nonsense, what you need to is, rather than developing your own argument against it, find an article where an expert says the system won't collapse into a two-party system. That is how balance is achieved, not through the original research, editorializing, and just plain making things up that you did. -Rrius (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Defeated incumbents
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)

NDP
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&amp;Labradorian (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The note that the NDP has finally become a "truly national party" is meant to note that the party has gained widespread support in all regions. Even in Saskatchewan, it was the second party by popular vote, but won no seats thanks to the FPTP system.  I agree on the point about Chretien (and Martin).  I just removed it, as it is about as notable as mentioning who won Brian Mulrooney and Joe Clark's old seats. Resolute 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Being Picky
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&amp;Labradorian (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)