Jump to content

Talk:2005 British Columbia general election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Liberal Colouration

Hey all. Had a bundle of fun with everyone Canadian federal election, 2004— we really broke new ground in terms of depth and breadth of online election coverage. I'm looking forward to seeing where this article goes.

Anyway, wouldn't be an election article without a great colour debate. The BC Liberals are currently "lightcoral," which is the same colour as we've widely implemented for the federal party. I'm not so keen on it re-appearing here, most generally because it just plain feels wrong to have Campbell sporting the same colours as the party of Trudeau. Wikipedia's article on the British Columbia Liberal Party seems very much to have reached a consensus behind the notion that the BC Liberals are currently a party of the right, with as much or more in common with the federal Conservatives as the federal Libs. It seems that our internal graphical shorthand should likewise remind our readers that these Liberals are a unique fish, not to be lumped in with any of the more traditional parties.

FWIW, the BC Liberals' own marketing generally plays up the blue half of their colourscheme over the red... back in 2001, I can remember their own internal graphics shown at their election night HQ depicting their electoral wins as "blue" rather than "red", likewise, at their recent party convention at Whistler the place was largely decked out in blue. The election signs in 2001 were also mostly blue, IIRC.

Anyhoo, curious if there's anyone else sharing my squeamishness about the lightcoral. As far as alternatives go, we could just pick a different reddish/pinkish shade, swing things over to the blue side of the spectrum (I'd likewise avoid the federal tories' "cornflowerblue") or split the difference and have a purple, a purply-red, or a purply-blue.

Thoughts on this most-pressing of topics? -The Tom 05:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dont mind having it changed to blue if you can prove to me that that is what the major networks will be using. I tried to highlight the differences by putting "BC" in front of Liberals btw. Earl Andrew 07:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
TV news stuck with red back in 2001. I imagine the major networks will be having a similar debate as this one around the conference table, but not for another four months. ;) Here're some swatches for discussion's sake:
lightcoral
rosybrown
tomato
darksalmon
palevioletred
orchid
plum
mediumpurple
lightsteelblue
dodgerblue
lightblue
Unity's colour can be pushed in a few directions to make room, if necessary... lighter, into the turquoise ranges, or into the greens, for instance
The Tom 21:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
okay... experimented a bit, didn't like what I got, so I went and grabbed some graphical stuff from the Liberals, played with the levels keeping the overall tone roughly the same, and stopped when I got.
#99AAFF
So that's my personal pick—"Howe Street Periwinkle." Hits the correct blue spectra that the BC Libs use, has a fair hint of warmth in it to represent the red portion of the BC Liberals (both graphically and ideologically ;)), and saturation-wise it works with the other party colours.
Let it never be said we don't overthink things on wikipedia. --The Tom 22:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I must say, I like it. But I do want us to be consistent with the media, but this will do for now. :) Dont forget to change it here: Legislative_Assembly_of_British_Columbia as wellEarl Andrew 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not to rain on the parade here but I think it'd be best to stick with "lightcoral" for the BC Liberals despite their right-of-centre ideology. Red is this the most predominent colour in their logo and "lightcolor" is still used for other provincial Liberal parties that are not tied to their federal cousins, I think most notably of Alberta. I am a card carrying, left-of-centre member of the Liberal Party of Canada and don't consider the BC Liberals to be "Liberals" and take great pains to explain to people who don't follow politics as closely that they are not a comparable party. Despite that, most members of the Liberal Party of Canada in British Columbia belong to the BC Liberal party and though they take great pains to always call themselves "BC Liberals" they still keep the red (as do the networks). I say we change it back to "lightcoral" until we see someone else do otherwise, to change it unilaterally without seeing the party or the media doing so first would seem to me to border on original research. - Jord 03:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further to my note above, after examining the BC NDP website I really think we should switch back to the old standby "lightcoral".

The "Liberal" in their logo is clearly red while the picture of the province is blue. This is likely due largely to the fact that blue is the predominent colour of the BC flag. A look at the [www.bc.ndp.ca NDP website] shows that it is also predominently blue. Though we tend to think of red as a "left" colour, one only needs to look south of the border to see the hard-right "red states" of the Republicans. Red seems to still be the colour of choice for the BC Liberals and we should reflect that here. I am going to change back to "lightcoral". I commend you for the work and effort you put into finding a good colour The Tom, I liked it but I think we need to go to "lightcoral" to a) reflect the official colour of the BC Liberals and b) not confuse those less politically astute readers of the article who will expect "Liberals" to be red. -- Jord 01:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All fair points, and I certainly won't raise a fuss either way. Couple of thoughts, though:

  • Firstly, one of my reasons for changing the colour was specifically for the benefit of said "less politically astute readers." I think it's more important to communicate to them instantly that Federal Liberal =/= BC Liberal than to communicate that BC Liberal == That pink party. Colours are visual shorthand, and it's important to portray this election to readers—the majority who may be relatively familiar with Canadian politics but not BC politics—as a ideologically-polarized and vitriol-heavy battle between the left and the right, not a squishy consensus-dominated tiff between the left and the centre-left. You can make the BC Liberals lime green if you want; this isn't really a blue/red debate but rather a lightcoral/not-lightcoral debate.
  • While there's a little bit more square footage of red in the BC Liberals logo than blue, blue is dominant everywhere else. The caucus site is thoroughly blue, as were the election signs last time around. While their current site is largely white, which touches of dark red and light blue, the previous version was all-blue. More notably, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform report (printed by the Ministry of the Attorney General) landed in my mailbox the other day, complete with a pie chart on assorted electoral outcomes and seat divisions that depicted the Liberals as blue and the NDP as orange.
  • To nitpick, I take some issue with the "most federal Liberals are also BC Liberals" comment. As the point is made in in the Liberal Party of Canada article, both the Alberta and Ontario Liberal Parties, while independent from the feds, are ideologically close and share memberships quite closely, so using lightcoral for them makes sense. As a card-carrying federal Liberal in the BC interior (a rare breed, and to be fair, nobody ever sent me a card) I know of zero political overlap between the Campbell support base and the tiny rump of federal Liberal support out here. While there's certainly some crossover in the Lower Mainland (Mark Marrissen & crew), I'll bet dollars to donuts that Tory MPs James Moore, Gurmant Grewal, John Reynolds and John Cummins will vote BC Liberal and FedLib MPs David Anderson, Ujjal Dosanjh, Stephen Owen and Hedy Fry will not, and that most of their respective supporters will follow suit.

Anyway, for shits and giggles I may ask around various folks closer to the powers that be than I am who might be able to weigh in on this most-pressing of issues. Thanks again to all. - The Tom 05:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for having editted this without consensus, I thought that there had been some due to there being no comment to my Jan 2 remark above suggesting that we change back to "lightcoral". I also want to clarify any confusion taken from my remarks. I am under no illusion that the BC Liberal Party is a party of the centre-right and that it is dominated by elements of the federal Conservative Party. However, I would also point out that, as an active member of the Liberal Party of Canada, my colleagues from BC are all supporters (though many begrudgingly) of the BC Liberals. Rank-and-file federal Liberal voters may not necessarily be BC Liberal voters but, for the most part, card-carrying federal Liberal members, if they belong to any provincial party, belong to the BC Liberals. Moreover, though you point to the Mark Merrisan / Christy Clark folks you might also note that BC Liberal cabinet minister Gulzar Cheema ran for the federal Liberals in the 2004 election. - Jord 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Greens"

Though the term "Greens" is often used in Australia, I've never heard a commentator in Canada refer to someone as "Greens Leader" or the like, "Green Party" seems to be the term of choice in Canada not "Greens". You might see members of the Green Party called "the Greens" and maybe the leader called "leader of the Greens" but I don't think the style "Greens Leader" or "Greens candidate" would be used, either "Green Party" or the singular "Green" seems a better fit. Thoughts? - Jord 03:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, Greens : Green Party :: New Democrats : NDP :: BC Liberals : LPBC -The Tom 07:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archive?

I'd liked to archive some of the stuff on here due to the size of the talk page and the fact that there will likely be plenty of more talk as we approach the election. Any objections? - Jord 18:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joe Pal

Anyone know what the deal is with Joe Pal from Surrey Whalley? he is not listed as anything in the official elections BC lists, not even Independent. Travis May 3rd. 2005

  • I'd put in "No affiliation". That designation appears on other Canadian election charts, usually separate from "Independent", although there really isn't any distinction between the two terms, IMHO. Ground Zero 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks I will do that. Travis May 3rd. 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Indpendents / Non affiliated candidates

I'd like to combine these into two rows, they are two designations for a candidate with the same status. I'll do this unless there is objection. Please advise. - Jord 23:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is #3 DRBC or Green

I am hesitant to move DRBC to the third column instead of the Green Party. Though DRBC now has one member in the legislature to Green's zero, this would not be the first time a party has been formed (in part) by a disgruntled independent and gone on to fair poorly at the polls and win no seats. The Greens consistantly lead DRBC in the polls and are beating DRBC in nominations. I do not believe we can displace the Greens as the third party at this time without being POV. - Jord 22:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would request you move the greens back to #3 sure the DRBC may have one MLA but the Greens are ahead of them in the polls and they seem like the 3rd party. Jack Cox 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is my opinion as well, I did not move them ;) - Jord 17:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am going to move Green Party back to 3rd position, because they have a full slate of candidates, whereas the Democratic Reform Party does not. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, 135.214.66.241 06:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

election guidelines apply

Please follow Wikipedia:election guidelines and best practices, and update that page if necessary. It mostly lists good examples. If this page is a good example of anything, then, make sure it is linked.

DRBC / Reform BC

The following news release can be (as of January 19, 2005) found on the [www.reformbc.net Reform BC front page]:

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vancouver, BC, January 17, 2005

BC HAS A NEW POLITICAL PARTY

Tom Morino, Leader Democratic Reform BC; and Simon Moses, Leader All Nations Party of BC yesterday announced at a founding convention in White Rock that they have reached an agreement to unite the two parties under the name Democratic Reform British Columbia.

Shirley Abraham, President Reform BC; stepped down as party president, along with other board members, to join Democratic Reform British Columbia and Ron Gamble was elected president to replace her. Gerry Rehwald and Walter Hayden will remain on the Reform BC board. Gamble stated that Reform BC remains as a registered political party.

- 30 –

For further information please call: Reform BC President: Ron Gamble (604) 980-7779

I e-mailed Mr. Gamble as I was unclear as to what was going on exactly... here is the email back and forth:

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:48:28 -0800 From: Ron Gamble <rongamble@shaw.ca> To: Jordan O Brien <jord@jord.ca> Subject: RE: From www.reformbc.net All headers

Mr. O Brian,

Four members of our board who were working to have the Democratic Party and All Nations Party come over to Reform BC did not materialize. Instead the Democratic Party, through Elections BC changed their name to Democratic Reform BC. The result of that had a profound effect in that Reform BC would not have been able to change its name to Democratic Reform BC as there was one already registered.

Although section 5.1 and 5.2, Article 2 and 3 are unalterable, the party name was not and could have been changed but no resolution was brought forward to our Annual General Meeting to do so.

Our bylaws do not permit membership in two provincial parties. As a result the four board members, who supported and joined the new party, could no longer belong to Reform BC. As to the rest of the Members of Reform BC it will be up to them to decide what party they want to join or support.

Reform BC at this moment is not ready, nor may be ready, to run candidates in this coming provincial election.

Original Message-----

From: Jordan O Brien [1] Sent: January 19, 2005 10:24 AM To: rongamble@shaw.ca Subject: From www.reformbc.net

Mr. Gamble:

I have a question about the current status of Reform BC.

>From what I have pieced together of have assumed the following:

At Reform's Jan. 15, 2005 AGM a vote was held to disband the party and join the new DRBC but this vote did not pass. As a result most of the executive left the party to join DRBC. Please let me know if that is correct.

What is very unclear, though, is do you and the new leadership of Reform BC intend to run candidates in the 2005 election? I am assuming by the positive news release re: DRBC on the Reform website that though a majority of Reform BC members support the DRBC - including yourself and the executive they elected Jan. 15 - there was not the 75% support required to amend the constitution?

Alternatively, I wonder if, perhaps, someone ruled that due to section 5.1 and 5.2 of your constitution stating that Sections 2 and 3 are unalterable it was ruled that, legally, Reform BC could not disband?

Could you please help me to shed some light on the above? Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks, Jordan O'Brien

Just FYI, I think that clarifies at least what happened w.r.t. Reform BC, they thought they were going to be taking the lead on it and when they didn't they took their toys and went home. - Jord 21:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party

Why has the BC Conservative Party been moved to minor parties from the "also rans" area? There are other parties still in existence that ran more candidates in 2001 and the Conservatives are not registering in any polls. Please advise. - Jord 19:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd picked a 3% cutoff between minor parties and also-rans, which demarcates a pretty substantial gap between Marijuana and, uh, the People's Front, I think, which was sub-0.5%. I'll move them back for the time being. -The Tom 20:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul Nettleton

Nettleton is listed as running in a different riding that the one he currently represents. Was this an error? I can't find any reference to him planning to run in a different riding but find two about him reoffering in his current riding (they are quite dated though). Could someone clarify? - Jord 18:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul Willcocks reported it a few weeks ago. -The Tom 20:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, good eye. I managed to confirm with a better source, I got the following off of the CP wire.

The Canadian Press Western News, Friday, January 21, 2005 Former Liberal Nettleton switches ridings to take on deputy premier

The Canadian Press

PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. (CP) - Former B.C. Liberal MLA Paul Nettleton says he's switching to a neighbouring riding so he can take on the deputy premier.

Nettleton, who was thrown out of the Liberal caucus after he accused his government of attempting to privatize B.C. Hydro, told the Prince George Citizen on Thursday he will run in Prince George-Mount Robson in the May 17 provincial election because he believes Deputy Premier Shirley Bond and the Liberals are ripe for the picking.

"I do think she is vulnerable," Nettleton said. "There will certainly be some high-profile losses for the Liberals in May, and one of them is Shirley Bond, I believe."

Nettleton said he decided to make the switch partially because he was told an internal B.C. Liberal Party poll placed him ahead of incumbents Bond and Prince George North MLA Pat Bell in overall local popularity.

He did not have a copy of the poll.

He said he is also running in Prince George-Mount Robson because his family moved to a home in the riding this past summer, so that is where he will be on the ballot.

Bond was recently named health minister.

Nettleton said he bears no ill will with Bond and his relationship with her remains "cordial."

Nettleton's decision leaves his current riding, Prince George-Omineca, wide open for a right-left battle between the Liberals and the NDP.

- Jord 21:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DRBC/MDM

Just for clarification's sake on the alphabet soup that ultimately composed DRBC: The Moderate Democratic Movement was an element of the British Columbia Democratic Coalition and it thus ceased to exist upon the coalition's merger into DRBC (along with the All Nations Party and bits of Reform BC). For tax purposes DRBC is seen by Elections BC as a successor party to just Morino's original party, BCDA. The other parties that folded into it along the way (including MDM and ANP) continue to exist on the register for legal purposes but are effectively dead. -The Tom 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, as you are a very avid editor of this page, I assumed that you were in agreement with the timeline that I pasted from here ;) I stand corrected. - Jord 16:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How the New One Works

Incumbents will be italicized, Leaders or Ministers will be bolded and if incumbent and running again italicized.

Normally, Jack Cox, when you are going to change something like that you should reach concensus first on this page before making the change. Especially, something such as the candidates tables whose format has long since been established on all Canadian elections pages. Also, you should sign your name to your comments on this page which you can do easily by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. - Jord 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fix Up

The Thing just went cooky, needs a fix Jack Cox 01:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific than "The Thing" and "went cooky"? -- Jord 14:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bearcat

I DONT CARE WHAT HE WANTS WITH PAGE LINKAGES, THE THING LOOKS UGLY PLAIN! I will do it again and again if I have too Jack Cox 20:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jack
a) please calm down
b) Wikipedia operates by consensus and that is a consensus that has been reached throughout Canadian election pages
- Jord 03:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Results table

I see someone has moved the results table to above the candidates table. In previous elections we have kept the results table at the bottom of the article until after the voting takes place, at which time it is moved to the top of the article immediately below the summary. If there is no objection, I will move it back to the bottom of the article. - Jord 00:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please document this practice as standard for other Wikipedia:elections
Hey Jord, mea culpa. I recall it being above the candidate list on the 2004 federal page so I can't say I'm aware of the precedent you refer to, but if it's really bothering you go right ahead and move it back. -The Tom 02:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't quite involved then. We had decided to do so during Alberta general election, 2004 which is where we also decided not to link candidates who were not "notable" enough for an article. I don't really care one way or the other, as I recall, the logic was simply that it was too cluttery to have an empty, and therefore meaningless, table above the more useful candidates table when no results were in. - Jord 16:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Fringe parties"

That sounds really, really, POV to me :| Any other ideas? - Jord 14:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much as certain parties within the category have occasionally gotten riled about the tag (usually with the argument, "well, we're not fringe, but *point* those guys are"), it is the only name in general usage, with an especial preponderence of hits in Canada. Just because it can be construed by some as an epithet doesn't neccessarily make it POV -The Tom 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fringe is defined as "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views" which I don't think is a fair way to characterize the parties. I don't disagree with the way you have reorganized the party breakdown, but I don't think the label "fringe" is appropriate for a neutral, encyclopedic work. - Jord 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Other parties contesting this election" which seems consistant with the "Other parties that may contest this election" category below it. I hope that is ok. - Jord 16:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues

Question:

Should there be a section for "Issues" or "Campaign Issues"? Like leadership, health care, economy, environment, etc. - Maclean25 04:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Em dash

The ridings ought to have Em dashes instead of hyphens. see: Electoral district (Canada). DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That might be for Canadian ridings, but for BC ridings? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The em-dash federally has to do with the different use of the hyphen in French grammar (hyphens connect compound nouns there, so in order to keep something like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot straight the em-dash has to be brought into play). Elections BC seems to use plain-vanilla hyphens [2]. -The Tom 16:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the em dashes are a federal thing not a Canadian-wide thing. Even New Brunswick, which is bilingual, uses regular dashes creating rather confusing ridings such as Dalhousie-Resitigouche-est - Jord 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It can indeed make riding names confusing. IMO, hyphens should be used as part of a name not in connecting names but if this is the consensus and Elections BC uses them, I'll go along too. Thanks for the input. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

While helping over at Alberta general election, 2004, we seemed to have an unwritten policy of not including external links to candidates within the candidates' table. I never removed them myself but I noticed them all vanishing shortly after they appeared and I could sympathize with both sides of the argument. No one ever complained so I assumed an unwritten consensus had developed ;) I am wondering what our stand should be on this as a link has appeared. -- Jord 15:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was simply following the Alberta precedent myself of non-wikilinking anyone who wasn't an incumbent, although a few "star candidates" were arbitarily redlinked in the hope that there may be an article on them someday. I can't recall external links ever appearing on the federal list at all. Like you say, there are two sides to the issue—personally, I'm not one of those people who compulsively wishes all biographical substubs to be deleted, so the abstract hope that every candidate might one day have an article make me lean towards wikilinking everyone. If there's a link to be shared, the candidate can get a quick and dirty substub with the link on that page. -The Tom 17:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you follow what I was getting at. I am not talking about the candidate names being wikilinked (I think they should be because I feel that wikipedia should aim to contain limitless knowledge, not just standard encyclopedic knowledge) I've conceeded with the consensus in Alberta that only incumbents and notables ought to be linked. I was referring to whether or not external links to campaign websites should be included ... see Robert Broughton in the eastern suburbs. - Jord 18:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think external candidate sites should be linked at all on this page. If the candidate has a wikipage, then a link in the External Links section on that page would be alright. I am going to delete any external candidate sites I see on this page. Feel free to revert if you disagree. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Coverage

Do we want to coordinate how we do the coverage of this tonight? On Alberta general election, 2004 EarlAndrew and I split the ridings up among ourselves so we wouldn't both be editting at the same time. Do we want to do that tonight? - Jord 03:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Different kinds of Majority.

In the last parliamentary elections in BC the result was 77-2, an absurdly lopsided result.

The 2005 elections are described as "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a smaller majority."

Could this be rephrased to something like "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a lopsided 77-2 majority reduced to a comfortable 50-37 (or whatever) majority"?

Tabletop 09:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 77-2 isn't something that's going to come again, but words like 'lopsided' and 'comfortable' seem to violate NPOV (indeed, I don't find 46-33 to be 'comfortable'). The current wording is perfectly fine and accurate.

Maybe there needs to be an article on the Descriptions for Size of Majority to thrash this one out. To fail to mention 77-2 is understatement, not NPOV, while 46-33 is less than an overwhealming victory, closer to a comfortable majority but more than a close result. Tabletop

Referendum cleared the ridings, but not the popular vote. But at 57% it's not going to just die away, that's for sure.


Kelvinc 11:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the voting system convention is sounded as if it was very well organised. The convention voting "strongly" even "heavily" for the new system.

I added a blurb on the 2001 results. I think it serves the purpose. My concern was really with the specific wording of 'comfortable' and 'lopsided', which I did not use.

Kelvinc 18:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

CBC Results and Elections BC results don't match.

D'oh! looks like the results are inaccurate. Still waiting for one poll in Bulkley-Stikine to come in. What, are they driving to Victoria or something? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

CBC always stops updating their results on elections night. See Elections BC for results. - Jord 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How does this work in a Westminster system?

Quoth the article:

Under amendments to the B.C. Constitution Act passed in 2001, B.C. elections are now held on fixed dates: the second Tuesday in May every four years.

How does that work in a Westminster system? Can the goverment no longer dissolve parliament and call a snap election? What if there's a coalition (not likely in Canada I know) that collapses or a by-election causes the ruling party to lose its majority? --Jfruh 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The legislation merely requires an election to be held on the second Monday in May four years following the previous election. If the government were to fall, new elections would be held and the next election would be the second Monday in May four years following that election presuming that it did not fall before hand. The amendement was relatively simple and can be found here. - Jord 02:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Colourblind-friendly"?

Wouldn't the map be less friendly to a person with red-green colourblindness? I ran both through Vischeck and the originals all seem far more colourblind friendly. --Ibagli (Talk) 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can tell you is I'm colorblind, and I can tell the difference between the red and the green in my map but not in the original. -- Mwalcoff 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gary Collins redux

I noticed this:

December 14, 2004 - Liberal Finance Minister Gary Collins abruptly resigns from cabinet and the legislature despite having been named co-chair of the Liberal re-election campaign a month earlier. The move requires Premier Campbell to undertake a minor cabinet shuffle.

that's not how I remember it, though his naming to the election campaign provided a convenient excuse; as I remember it this resignation happened just after - or was it just before? - news broke that he had been under surveillance by the RCMP commercial crime squad having lunch at El Lupo in relation to what has since become the Railgate scandal.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By-seat breakdown?

Earlier election pages have detailed seat-by-seat returns; here it's broken down only by region, which diminishes popular percentages of the lesser parties....I'd come here wanting to find what the percentage of teh vote won by each Tory candidate was, as presenting it as 0.55% of the provincial vote is misleading and not that informative as per their chances in individual ridings now.Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First/Second Party in infobox

This edit attempted to reverse a switch-change made to hide the "First Party, Second Party" titles in the infobox, the implciations of which are obviously POV; this was disucssed at Talk:British Columbia general election, 2009. Just reporting this, partly because I sourced the IP address which made the edit and it's somebody at the Universite de Quebec a Montreal, or at least someone "riding" their servers.Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia general election, 2005. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_British_Columbia_general_election/Archive_1&oldid=1068654228"