Talk:2021 Canadian federal election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Results by province[edit]

The new table is claimed to provide more information but it does not give each province's total seats and is much more difficult to read than the old table.

I say return to the old table as of Jan 22, 2023.

The only thing I would add is the number of overall votes in each province to give idea of which provinces are most important. if some one wants to know how party vote shares have changed they themselves can compare to the table for the last election. 68.150.200.116 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding total votes is reasonable. Looking up total voters is a lot less work than looking up swings in party vote share, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Percentages and swings contain more revealing information than raw vote totals, as has been demonstrated in the articles concerning the UK elections. Raw votes tend to cloud the issue.Raellerby (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking in terms of total voter turnout for each province rather than a breakdown of the raw numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that this table draws from some work done in Résultats détaillés des élections générales québécoises de 2022 that was very enlightening in showing regional differences arising from the 2022 Quebec general election. I just flipped the orientation to enable the addition of seat numbers and the pointing out of significant swings, to give a broader overview of the results.Raellerby (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But where are total seats per province? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.200.116 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned in Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election.Raellerby (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The provincial table seems to refer to the Conservatives as PC, which is incorrect. PC was the old Progressive Conservative party. The abbreviation should be CPC or Con. 142.163.87.0 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Thanks for catching that. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Opening of PPC Discussion[edit]

MOVED
Withdrawn by nominator; discussion surrounding site-wide guidelines for the 5% rule relating to parliamentary elections moved to a new RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see that the previous discussions around the inclusion of Maxime Bernier and the PPC in the infobox have been archived, but since there was no general consensus reached, I'd like to re-open it here - especially since we are well past the actual election date.

To introduce my personal opinion, I don't see any reason why we should have the PPC included. The PPC came into the 2021 election with 0 seats, and came out of it with 0 seats and less than 5% of the popular vote. These metrics are what objectively matter for infobox inclusion, no? Therefore, I believe we should remove the PPC from this page's infobox. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - given the results in the election and also their continued losses in every by-election since then I tend to agree. Their lack of any impact and slow decent into obscurity means that they are basically a footnote to this election and that means they should not be in the infobox. They should be mentioned in the article text, along with other minor parties with no seats, but including them in the infobox is really WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The lack of a consensus didn't stop some people closing discussions or prematurely editing as if a consensus had been reached. I opposed their inclusion because they didn't meet simple criteria but there was a group determined to move the goalposts any way they could to support its inclusion. I don't support reopening the discussion; it's not worth the acrimony and intellectual dishonesty. The matter should remain closed until the electorate delivers a stronger message next time. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - You want the PPC removed, but not right now? GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They were included because every Canadian news organization included them in its list of parties. The 5% rule is actually something used for U.S. presidential elections. The U.S. has a two party system where even the runner up wins more votes than the winning candidate in Canada. I suspect the reason reliable sources decided to include the PPC is that they may have siphoned off right-wing voters from the Tories, whose strategy had been to compete for the centre, thereby ensuring a Liberal win. Whether or not that is true, it's part of the discussion about the election results.
Minor parties, which typically receive far less than 1% of the vote, are left out of the list because they are not included in reliable sources. They also receive no news coverage and are not decisive factors in election outcomes, which is probably why reliable sources omit them.
TFD (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 5% rule, at least according to its most recent RFC, is said to apply to all elections, American or otherwise. Moreover, none of the noted exceptions (e.g. only one candidate/party crossing the threshold, or notable candidates/parties dropping out before the election is held) apply in this case. Any other notes relevant to the election, such as the PPC siphoning rural Tory votes, should definitely be included as part of the article's text, but this does not translate to the PPC's inclusion in the infobox. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While 5% makes for a good rule of thumb, they very nearly got 5% anyway. And I'd argue (just like I did before) that 4% is more important now, because that is the threshold for debate inclusion.-- Earl Andrew - talk 03:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that, at the end of the day, <5% is <5%, no matter how "close" it is. You either cross the threshold or you don't. And perhaps debate inclusion should indeed be a site-wide consideration for political infobox inclusion, but according to the most recent RFC for the 5% rule, it just isn't listed. So while I do think that discussion would be worthwhile to have in a new RFC for the 5% rule, it isn't really relevant here. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion in that RFC states that it's for individual candidates, not for Parliamentary elections, which we are discussing here.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that, for the case of parliamentary multi-party elections, the 5% rule can be ignored only if a party elects a candidate, no? For example, a Dutch election infobox can list parties that receive under 5% of the vote as long as the party in question has elected at least one member. However, this does not apply to the PPC, since it elected 0 candidates to the HoC, and came into the election with 0 MoPs. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't stated in the RfC. I think the RfC you've cited is meaningless for this discussion. We should probably differ to a local consensus, which we've already adopted.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        In the RfC I'm looking at, it relates to parliamentary elections in which parties have had candidates elected, but have not received 5% of the overall popular vote. This would be a valid exemption from the 5% rule, but it doesn't apply to the PPC in this case.
        Also, there hasn't been a local consensus reached on this topic, which is the primary reason I wanted to re-open discussion. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that in the RfC you linked to.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 20#RfC: Expanding 5% infobox threshold TFD (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I thought you were referring to a different RFC, because that one doesn't appear to discuss parties that won no seats.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            I would still argue that the spirit of the 5% rule and its relevant RFCs indicate that, if a party does not elect any candidates in a parliamentary election, the metric for its inclusion in the infobox should be whether or not it gets 5% of the overall popular vote. It's obviously at least somewhat arbitrary, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and sitewide, 5% seems to be the benchmark. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is 5% less arbitrary than say 4%, which is what the debate commission sets as the threshold for entering the leaders debates?-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              Why should an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia editors take precedence over the presumably informed judgement of professional journalists who covered the election? TFD (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              It's less arbitrary because it's already been established site-wide through many RfCs and discussions over the years. If we want to change the 5% rule, then this article's talk page should not be the place to do so. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              I could only find two RfCs, neither of which were for parliamentary elections. The only discussion I know about is this one, where editors decided to follow the listings used in mainstream news media. If you think it should be policy or guidelines, then you should get them changed. TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The purpose of an infobox is to "summarizes key features of the page's subject". Consistent with WP:NPOV, priority should be to reflect the weight the sources/references give throughout the page, proportionately without editorial bias. The national news outlets consistently followed the PPC throughout the election campaign in line these other listed parties. Therefore, that coverage should be reflected in the individual sections of the page. maclean (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My counter-argument would be that, especially for parliamentary elections, that's a very subjective claim. Lots of elections can have lots of parties that get substantial media attention, but if they end up electing no candidates and don't receive a large share of the popular vote, then they shouldn't be included in the infobox. With that being said, the PPC should still be mentioned in the article's text because of the reasons you mentioned. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think anything has changed since the consensus to include them was reached. While consensus can change, there needs to be a decent reason for us to reopen this. I don't see it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks that the more recent sections on this talk page related to this issue haven't reached a consensus themselves, though? This doesn't seem like a settled issue to me. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be helpful to take some of the discussion here to a more site-wide context. I've created a new RfC for the 5% rule surrounding parliamentary elections, and I hope that a new consensus can come out of there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeSaucer9 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this RfD while running that one. It feels like an improper way to alter this discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'll archive this discussion in the meantime, but I hope that we can come to a better and more consistent sitewide consensus on that discussion! AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The PPC isn't special, so I see no need to make exceptions for that party. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seat change basis[edit]

Why are seat changes based on seats held before the election, instead of seats changed between elections? I don't feel this gives proper context for perception of political leaders. For example, The conservatives effectively lost 2 seats in comparison to the previous election, and the greens lost 1. This would help explain why Erin O'Toole then lost his leadership review, and Annamie Paul resigned soon after the election. Jag1762010 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more accurate to show how the seat totals were changed by the election. O'Toole and Paul were ultimately done in by infighting that began before the election rather than slight decreases in seat totals compared to the previous election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really make sense to me. The conservatives and greens objectively won less seats then they did in the previous election, but it makes it look like they performed exactly as well, while liberals gained 5 seats out of nowhere. Jag1762010 (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And basing the changes on the previous election would obscure the picture even more—there were five independents and a vacancy going into the election, and the seat swings were far more than a couple here and one there. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And only 1 of those independents was elected as an independent. All the rest were originally held by one of the parties. To make it look like all those seats were won out of nowhere when the total number of seats didn't change between elections doesn't seem accurate to me. I'd argue the French version of this page is more accurate on that front. Jag1762010 (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchet: 2009 or 2023 Image?[edit]

2023
2009

Which image should we use for Yves-François Blanchet in this article? The article about the next election (2024/2025) is using the 2023 image. This article currently uses an image from 2009, which is well before he became leader. I think the 2023 one is closer in time and preferred for that reason. What do others think?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 photo: It would be anachronistic to put the 2023 photo in a article about a election who happened in 2021 Punker85 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2023 photo. I generally prefer "closest without going over", but the Blanchet of 2021 resembled the one of 2023 much more than the one of 2009. It seems much more representative to use the newer photo. Though anachronistic, it wouldn't be the first time — peek 1997 Canadian federal election and its 2004 photo of Manning, 2008 photo of McDonough, and 2010 photos of Duceppe and Charest. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Blanchet and the examples you made is that Blanchet have a photo taken before the election while all of your examples didn't Punker85 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have thought for a long time that a new photo was needed, and agree with Kawnhr that the 2009 image is not a good likeness of what he has looked like since becoming leader in 2019. Blanchet has had the glasses and grey stubble beard for a long time. A quick google image search will confirm this for you. The 2009 image just doesn't look like him in 2021. It's not ideal. It would be better if we had a photo from 2021, but of the choices available the 2023 image seems to be a better representation of his appearance in 2021 than the 2009 image is.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2023 photo: I agree that the closer the better. We are also using a 2023 image of Maxime Bernier for the 2021 election. The 2009 image is so old and does not represent his 2021 appearance as well. PascalHD (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results by province Box[edit]

The current box is a complete mess with far too much information in my opinion. Is there a good reason we're not just using the results by province box every previous canadian federal election uses? I see the previous discussion on this page asking for total number of votes, and that seems to have led to an absolutely gigantic box on Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election#Results by province which I also think is worse and more of a mess than the previous box, that is less useful for the reader. WanukeX (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't have total number of votes cast in each province, so the present confusing box is not due to including that.

Oh you are referring to the box in the separate Wiki article "Results breakdown of the 2021..." this talk is about the wiki article "2021 Canadin election" article. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the box under "Results by Province" on this page, which different from the "results by province" box template that's been used for every previous federal election and is, as I said, a mess. WanukeX (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=1214598482"