Toqta

So what are we going to do when Harper drops that pesky writ next week?

Will this article be broken up into separate articles? Should the timeline stay as it is? Somebody has to start thinking about it.Ericl (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

14 October

The PMO has confirmed, for lack of a better word, that a federal election will be called for 14 October 2008. I've added that date to the template, although I realise that it isn't official yet. Does this violate any guidelines? Soviet Canuckistan (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They have not confirmed anything. From the article you cite: "The officials said no firm decision has been made, but that it is probable Harper will seek to dissolve his minority government next week, sending the country to the ballot box the day after Thanksgiving." In my mind, it's fine to include the speculation in the article, but until the writ of election is issued, a date should not be included.PoliSciMaster (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an Election speculation section. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We all know it will be an election on 14 October, so perhaps it should be included? JdeJ (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball fishhead64 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder folks, if it's held this year? This article would be moved to Canadian federal election, 20008. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear is what I just heard on the news: It has been confirmed that Stephen Harper will call an election on sunday. The news also said that there will definatly be an october 14 election. --Kanata Kid (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still "sources" telling the media what will happen. Until Harper walks across the street to Government House, and a writ of election is issued, it remains speculation.PoliSciMaster (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's wait until it's official. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Date linking is now deprecated by the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- see MOS:SYL. I have removed the date links to bring the article in line with the manual. Ground Zero | t 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Election Date

I've no citation handy, but CBC news has confirmed that Harper will (on Sunday, the 7th) ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament & call a federal election for October 14th, 2008. However, we still should wait until he & she actually does. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The language CBC uses is simply "expected". It's not likely that there will be an election that day, as it is a Jewish holiday. Common sense dictates CBC is wrong, and nothing should be added to the article about an election date until it is confirmed by Rideau Hall. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Most recent CBC article says: "Harper is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday and ask her to dissolve Parliament, the Canadian Press reported Thursday. Canadians would then go to the polls on Oct. 14." So it is still speculation at this point. As far as the election falling on a Jewish holiday the PMO has already said that they can vote at advanced polls, but it won't change the date. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The CBC story is based on a press release from PMO, indicating that at 8:05am on Sunday, the Prime Minister will depart 24 Sussex to proceed to Rideau Hall, where he will ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament for general elections to be held on October 14. As to the Jewish holiday issue, a press release was issued by the CJC advising that the PM had contacted them to discuss this, and making sure they were aware of the alternatives (advance polling) and asking for their help in communicating that to the members of the Jewish community. This is about as certain as it gets. Despite all of that, I agree that until the Governor General actually authorizes a writ of election, we should wait before updating the page.PoliSciMaster (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We should wait for the official decision. I don't see how it would have much of an impact that it's a Jewish holiday, but no need to speculate about that. We're like to find out tomorrow. JdeJ (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish holiday in question is one that everybody goes to work for unless it's also on Shabbat. It's part of Sukkus, and not an important one at that. It's a non issue by Grits and NDPers to screw things up. Ericl (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll datas section

It's getting too long for the page. Once the election has been called, I propose that we either shorten it or move all of them to a new page and wikilink it. What do you think? Pieuvre (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the principle but disagree about the time to do it. As the election is only five weeks away, the polls are very relevant at the moment. Once the election has taken place, we should keep the polls section but narrow it down quite extensively. JdeJ (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Polls from more than two years ago are not particularly relevant. Perhaps the list should be trimmed to include only polls from the last 6 months, with a link to the full list in a separate article.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the polls hidden but make them appear on the page when requested, the same way that certain templates can be? - Montréalais (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of recent polls and overall trends should be in article but move the full list to a new article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Any poll taken before Jan 1/08 is irrelevant at this point, and any value of polls taken between then and April is questionable. We should have the results of last election of course, but after that I'd say include only May and up at most. I say we keep all the leader polls from this year on though since there are less of them. -Royalguard11(T) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all the historic polls are relevent. But why not do what we did during the last election? After the last campaign started the polls were moved to a subpage (presumably Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2008) and the last couple of weeks were kept on the main page; with all the results moved after the election was completed. There was some talk of this at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006/archive1#2006 Canadian federal election opinion polls Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The list of opinion polls is way, way too long and takes up far too much space. Move them to a subpage quick! --RFBailey (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, in an attempt to get things started, I've brutally moved the polls table to Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2008 as suggested above and removed all but the past month's polls from this article. I don't pretend that this is prettily done but hope the Bold move will encourage others to complete the work. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good bold move! Nfitz (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose moving all the polls to the new article, including the leadership polls and everything else. I think there's not much reason to constantly update two separate pages with the same information. Esn (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Since the writ was dropped (and hence dispelling any notion of WP:CRYSTAL), it seems only proper to put up the actual election infobox, with a draft at User:Kurykh/Sandbox4. Anticipating some questions, I decided to answer two of them preemptively:

• Having the template at all: All declared upcoming elections (i.e. dropping the writ) have this infobox, and this article should be no exception.
• Order of the parties: Before an election has occurred, the order of the parties reflect the incumbent parliament. In this case, the order is Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green.
• Inclusion of the Greens: Blair Wilson is a Green MP, declared a week before dissolution. Since the Greens are now included in the 39th parliament, and parties represented in the previous parliament are shown in the infobox of the current election, it is only natural to include the Greens.

Comments and questions welcome. I will add it to the article if there are no objections. —kurykh 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems good to me! Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New infobox implemented. —kurykh 01:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• To further preemptively tackle the inclusion of Elizabeth May, I think their inclusion does not stem from Blair Wilson, as one MP does not give a party official party status in the House. Her inclusion is based more on the Greens' performance in the last election. In 2006 the Greens got over half a million votes, whereas the other small parties only had tens of thousands of votes. That gap proves that the Greens are not a fringe party. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How much do the Greens need to manage to still be in the infobox after the election? -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the threshold for notability is around 5%. If the Greens get that then they were notable in the campaign; if not we can treat them like any other fringe party. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the threshold for notability should be winning a seat, since this seems to be the threshold for inclusion pre-election. --  timc  talk   16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Timc. Any percentage is fairly arbitrary (i.e., who's to say 5% is more notable than 4%?), whereas winning a seat represents a qualitative difference, and a clear separation from just fringe support. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We already don't have proportional representation in this Country. How are the "fringe" parties going to get any where if nobody shows what choices Canadians have. If someone wants to vote for the Christian Heritage Party or the Neo Rhino they should be given the info to make their free choice. I understand that the media is run by money so it's not cost effective to display all parties, but a site like this where money is not an issue should not have any problem showing all the federal parties in Canada. llotech 21:53, 06 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to be fair, but to be realistic. In any case, we can only fit six parties into the box because of template limitations. —kurykh 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading information

The mention of this upcoming election and certain parts of this article seem to imply that the Governor General has the independent power to call an election. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. —kurykh 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

She does in a minority government. Peter Grey (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually in any situation the GG does hold the power to dissolve parliament, just it is an established constitutional convention that they only do upon the advice of the PM Xtopher (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the King-Byng affair lead to passage of the 1931 Statute of Westminster preventing this type of event from happening again? NorthernThunder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

King–Byng was one of the causes of the Statute, but it had nothing to do with this issue. King–Byng's legacy was the Balfour Declaration's severing much of Westminster's authority over the dominion governments and make the GG the Queen's representative rather that the Westminster government's. Balfour was in turn codified by the Statute of Westminster. Moreover, the statute that provides for fixed election dates states,

“ 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. ”

[1]

Thus, the Governor General has the discretionary power to dissolve Parliament. While, by convention, the GG exercises this power only on the advice of the PM, it would be deceptive to say the PM dissolves Parliament and calls elections. -Rrius (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought we were more autonomous than that. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of autonomy. But even under convention, the Governor General has no duty to follow the PM's advice if he does not have the confidence of the Commons. Peter Grey (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Timelines and "Events since the 2006 election"

I've taken the liberty of removing these sections entirely. They belong more in the 39th Canadian Parliament article and not here. Significant issues pertinent to the election can be added in the "Issues" section. Not only were the two sections essentially the same, but they also unnecessarily cluttered the article, hence their removal. —kurykh 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you thought it belonged there, you should have added it to that article or created a separate article for it. Removing relevant information without at the same time adding it to another place is somewhat irresponsible. Esn (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm restoring. I don't think it should appear here like this, but it belongs somewhere. Nfitz (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind their temporary restoration, but here's my viewpoint: relevant information is already present in that article, and we don't need two redundant timelines that have nothing to do with this article. Also, the sections, especially the "timelines" section, is stuffed with trivia; e.g., how is the registration of Neorhino.ca with Elections Canada significant in the context of this election? Contrary to Esn's assertions, removing the sections without adding it to 39th Canadian Parliament is not irresponsible; just because the other article doesn't have this timeline word for word doesn't mean that we should clutter this article with this mess. Frankly, dumping repetitive and mostly trivial information somewhere else would be even more irresponsible. —kurykh 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Target seats

Did the Greens lose any seats by less than 15% last election? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's on the page already. No, but they lost a London North Centre by-election by 9%, and were polling in 2nd place in Guelph before the four by-elections were canceled by Harper's election announcement. Esn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is listed as a Conservative target seat despite the fact that they won it in the last by-election. IMO the target seats list should be based on the most recent election results, whether it's a general election or a by-election. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be better to keep the current list order, but list by-election results in brackets if applicable. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominated candidates

The # of candidates listed here differs sharply with the #s on this page. There actually seem to be fewer of them, for some reason (e.g. NDP are listed as having 187, but the link says they only have 101). Or am I not understanding something? Esn (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Liberals have 307 candidates, not 303, they are running a candidate in every riding except for Central Nova.

Deadline

Is September 22 - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/11/ot-ndp-080911.html - Nickjbor (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandalpedia.ca

Yes, the Liberal Party has unveiled its own -pedia website aimed at outlining Conservative Party controversies. It is mentioned here. NorthernThunder (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Party names

The results tables for elections from 1867 to 2004 use short-form names of parties, i.e., "Conservative", "Liberal", "Marxist-Leninist" instead of the long-form/official names used by the 2006 and 2008 tables that use "Conservative Party of Canada", "Liberal Party of Canada", "Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)".

I think that using the long form names makes the table more crowded without adding any useful information for the reader. the official names are easily found in each of the parties' articles that are linked form the tables. I propose to replace the long-form names (Version A) by short form names (Version B) in the 2006 and 2008 tables.

I also propose to make the table clearer by reducing the emphasis on the dates. Please comment at Template talk:Canadian federal election, 2008. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable! Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club is a notable environmental group and if they're criticizing the Tory plan it should be in the article. If some other notable group is criticizing the other parties' plans too, then we'll put that in as well. If nobody's done that yet, it's no excuse for not having the sierra club quote in the environment section. User:142.56.5.35 has been removing it and I've invited him to comment here instead. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's one of the notable NGOs whose election-related policy announcements should be here (as well as the CTF, Fraser Institute, CLC, etc.). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NDP - Environment

It should be noted that the NDP states in the source article that they will be halting development, not production. One implies that there will be no new projects, the other stops all activity. Prestonlowther (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's my fault for misreading the reference. I've fixed it. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember, it's the politicians job to spin statements, not ours ;) -Royalguard11(T) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC Campaign

Would the ABC campaign be considered an issue for inclusion in this article! --HJKeats (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think so, seeing as it is getting a fair amount of media attention. Another website with the same name, but .com instead of .ca, has also sprung up. A new site at voteforenvironment.com has been picked up in several places, including CBC. Just food for thought.--Northern Fox (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a listing or catagory of ridings?

Huh?

Yartett (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean List of Canadian federal electoral districts ? justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thank you for pointing out that which I should have noticed by paying better attention to!  ;-)
(I'm new here.)
But why "districts" when they are called "ridings?"
Hmmmmmmmm.
Yartett (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always said ridings too, though Elections Canada calls them districts[2]. You say tomayto I say tomahto, I suppose. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crime Discussion

With the unveiling of the Tory crime platform (in particular youth rime), shouldn't there be a section outlining such as an election issue? Eriol Ancalagon (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think those rebellious, rhyming youths should be made an example of in this election. Make them write prose instead! ;-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Feel free to write it, provided its neutral and well-sourced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Debate webcast

As a Canadian living in the US I am trying to find out if the English debate will be streamed on the net by the CBC-or anyone? 68.224.206.168 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• CTV: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip97869#clip97869--
• CPAC: http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=watch&lang=e&watchID=1e
• CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/debates/

WikiWikinger (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

September 22nd nomination and withdrawal deadline

Recently, several candidates who have resigned have been removed from candidate lists. I would like to remind everyone that, as Nickjbor stated earlier, the deadline for nomination and withdrawal is September 22nd. Anyone who resigns after that deadline will remain on the ballot and should not be removed from any candidate list. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a note with the list of the candidates who have resigned or who have lost party nomination after the Withdrawal deadline? They are still on the ballot, but it is still worth noting that they are no longer campaigning or, if elected, not going to sit with their party. Seen0288 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we know from experience when ElectionsCanada will release a final list? -Rrius (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think notes would be appropriate. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO Canadian federal election, 2008 (candidates), Conservative Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election, Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election, Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election and New Democratic Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election should list any candidate who is on the ballot as that party's candidate, with notes for those who are no longer endorsed by the party or have stopped campaigning, such as Julian West or Lesley Hughes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They may be still on the ballot but they are no longer candidates for the party and, thus, do not belong on a list on Party candidates. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But they were still nominated by the parties, are listed on the ballot as their parties' candidates and are still their parties' candidates from a legal perspective. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean the constituents could cast a vote for them? That, in theory at least, there is a probability that one or more of these individuals could become the next MP for their riding, even if they are officially dead as at election day (as has happened at least once in the past)? Then by all means the name must stand on the list of the party's candidates. While I'm on that topic, perhaps we should have a law checking for a pulse after all the nominations are in, this might reduce the number of fenceposts getting elected to represent my home province of Alberta... ;-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Constituents can cast a vote for them and they can be elected but are not able to claim the party's affiliation and would not sit with the party. In case of the death of a candidate, the election for that riding is called off and a by-election is held at a later date. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that they are still their parties' candidates from a legal perspective. I contest that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If party names are on the ballot for candidates kicked out of their parties after the 22nd, in my opinion they should be included on their party's page with an asterisk and listed else where as "independent Liberal", "independent Conservative" etc. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If a candidate is no longer a party candidate then it is incorrect to call them party candidates for the election. It is not only not-Verifiable, it is Verifiably untrue. I suggest a solution as I did for Lesley Hughes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_candidates,_2008_Canadian_federal_election&diff=241277532&oldid=241270284 Listing as no candidate but explaining that she was the party candidate but stepped down. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jen Hunter

I would appreciate it if someone would look at the material I added to Talk:Jen hunter and add it to the article if considered appropriate. As a volunteer with the Jen Hunter campaign I've refrained from editing the article directly. Also, the page should be moved to capitalize her last name: "Jen Hunter", not "Jen hunter". Thanks. 70.48.50.161 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Harper plagerism

Just curious. Should we also add in that then (NDP) MP Bob Rae called the Liberal Party of Canada members hypocrits? Not sure, myself. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Rae calling the Liberals hypocrites (whenever he did it) relevant to this election? —kurykh 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on in what context? Was he calling the Liberals hypocrites at the time with regard to something notable that could be construed to be a current election issue? Was he calling them hypocrites in a context that, given his current party affiliation, would make it embarrassingly obvious that he now fits his own label? Or not? These are the questions of context. Please provide the reference to Rae's remarks so we can put them in context. On the other hand, Harper's use of almost identical verbage to John Howard's in his speech from 2003 is relevant now because Canada's ongoing involvement in Afghanistan may prove to be a key election issue this time round. While we don't expect our leaders to write their own speeches, we do at least expect their speechwriters to at least make an attempt to hide the strings of the Washington-based puppeteers. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

This article needs a few improvements. The writing is confusing in places, with dangling and disjoint clauses throughout. Citations aren't provided for some claims, and other claims are presented (with citations) despite the fact they are simply party talking points instead of proven fact. (For example, Conservative party's statement that Green Shift will cause a "big recession"; yes, every party is doing this, I'm just using the most obvious example from the article).

We could also have sections about the hustings and media coverage, as well as info about provincial and territorial government statements about this election. I'm sure there's more I've missed. Mindmatrix 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One obvious exclusion is a comparison of party platforms. Mindmatrix 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then fix it. -Rrius (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd checked the edit history, you'd see that I've been working on it a bit. Since I don't have a limitless supply of time, I listed the deficiencies of the article so that others interested in it may also attend to the issues. That's the purpose of article talk pages - to identify issues so others may collaborate to improve the article. Frankly, your comment provides no insight toward any of the points I've noted. Mindmatrix 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference about criticism of Harper's "big recession" statement; there are other references for use of the word "recession" in various contexts by several parties, and criticisms thereof, that it merits some attention too. Mindmatrix 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist Party has a new leader?

What's this about Anna di Carlo leading the CPC (ML)? I thought Sandra Smith was still their leader? I didn't see it mentioned on their website, what's the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.104 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has been messing around with the ages of the candidates. Stephen Harper is not 107 years old and Elizabeth may is not zero years old. Quickly make changes! --Fantastic fred (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh that was the number seats their parties have. My mistake (man I feel like an idiot).--Fantastic fred (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint

This Article is pretty skewed to the Left it seems just something to think about 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't give specific suggestions for improvement, you are not likely to see action. -Rrius (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with you, the comment by Rrius is accurate. To improve the article, we need specific instances of what needs to be fixed. A point form list is sufficient, but please include text selected from the article and explain the issue. Mindmatrix 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Graph at the polling sub-article

There is currently a discussion at the opinion polling sub article about whether the polling data or graph should be at the top. Comments are welcome there. -Rrius (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Reality

Shouldn't the fact that vandals cut brake lines in Toronto count? At least 10 cases were confirmed by police and all of the recipiants had Liberal signs on their front lines. 5 October 2008 !-- Template:UnsignedIP --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.195 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that what happened in Guelph in August [3] was repeated in Toronto in October [4]. Both sprees targeted liberal voters. Nanonic (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Resignation bias

More than just NDP candidates have resigned. I added a Liberal and Tory candidate, but the section still reads biased against NDP - can someone add a bit more info about all of the resignations? IanBushfield (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Toronto Star has a nice article about this over here, with a list of all the candidates who've resigned because of something that was found on the internet. Esn (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Campaign slogans

Has anyone found out what the campaign slogans for the five major parties? I've definitively found two parties' slogans so far, and the Liberal ones are iffy:

	English slogan	French slogan
Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Conservative| Conservative
Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal| Liberal	Richer, Fairer, Greener	Un Canada plus prospère, plus juste et plus vert
Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NDP| NDP
Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BQ| BQ	Present for Québec!	Présent pour le Québec!
Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green| Green	Vote for tomorrow	Votez pour l'avenir

Or do we even need campaign slogans in the article? The 2006 election article has it, so I'm just asking. —kurykh 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Harpy is using "Harper Leadership '08" in English, and I've seen "Le Quebec prends des forces" in French. BTW, in correct French the Lib slogan would be Un Canada plus riche, plus juste et plus vert --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm...the Liberal's French slogan is actually Un Canada plus prospère, plus juste et plus vert per the Liberal's website (it's the name of their platform, but whatever). My bad. —kurykh 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Democrats are using "Don't let them tell you it can't be done." IanBushfield (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Globe just endorsed Harper

Hey, the Globe and Mail just endorsed Harper and the Conservateurs: [5] nat.utoronto 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Points of view

Can we please remember to be cautious about honouring WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It is very tempting to describe events and issues according to one's point of view and perhaps unavoidable to approach an issue from one's own perspective. However, it is crucial that this article be balanced and neutral. WP:NPOV reminds us to let the facts speak for themselves. Other good reads are Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples. If you find it irresistible to comment and draw conclusions from the facts, make a blog or find a discussion forum - there are plenty around - then come back and give us just the facts. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly echo that. There are a couple of you who are frankly either editing in bad faith (i.e. deliberately trying to skew the article in "your side's" favour) or are just completely out to lunch on what WP:NPOV means. There have also been some violations of WP:3RR, and I strongly suggest that the violators cool it, or they'll find themselves with some blocks. If what you're reverting is so egregious, there are enough of us watching that you won't need to hold down the fort all by yourself. If you find that nobody's helping you, you might want to consider that maybe you're the one whose editing is problematic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Strategic voting

I've added a strategic voting section, since this has been getting quite a lot of press recently. It's rushed, so I hope others will improve it. One thing to add perhaps is that I've seen it written (can't remember just where right now) that strategic voting schemes are a reaction of the public against the first-past-the-post system, and one step on the way to building support for proportional representation by making first-past-the-post irrelevant. Esn (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Results

Since it is illegal under the Elections Act to transmit results with polls partially open, I recommend that the page be fully protected from 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm Eastern tomorrow night. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and is not subject to Canadian law, their servers are in Florida. Unreferenced claims of election results should be treaded like any other unreferenced claims, and the removal of properly referenced election results information should be treated the same as any other removal of properly referenced information. Maybe we could include a warning about posting results before polls close being illegal in Canada. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)