Talk:By-elections to the 42nd Canadian Parliament

Ottawa--Vanier alpha

Shouldn't Ottawa--Vanier be listed in alphabetical order among the five April 3, 2017 by-elections? (ie. between Markham--Thornhill and Saint-Laurent.) I think it's only first right now because it was the first one to be added to the page. Madg2011 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Resigned to..."

Hungarian Phrasebook, Canadianpoliticalwatcher, and Jwkozak91 (and others), I'm curious as to your thoughts about resignation reasons in the Overview table. IMO Ambrose didn't resign "to join the Wilson Center as a visiting scholar," she simply resigned and, like most people who leave their jobs, got a new job. The same is true for Lebel.

If someone resigns to accept a diplomatic, governmental, or senatorial position, I think that's fair for inclusion as such positions would require them to not sit as an MP. If someone resigns to enter provincial or municipal politics, I'd include that as well for ease of encyclopedia navigation. But when someone resigns for other reasons, I think we should limit our desciption to simply "resigned." We shouldn't be guessing about their motivations. Madg2011 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know know about Lebel but Ambrose announced on May 16 that she'd be resigning and on the same day the Wilson Institute announced her appointment [1] so clearly the appointment has been worked out prior to her resignation announcement. I think she had said previously she wouldnt be running but I think it's reasonable to assume the timing of her departure was related to the appointment, otherwise she may have stayed on longer or even finished her term. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get in on this so late, but the above are all good points. Personally, I think that it makes sense to include it as her announcement that she is joining the Wilson Center was made before she officially resigned her seat. I don't feel strongly either way and I think simply putting "Resigned" is still fine, or meeting down the middle and stating something along the lines of "Resigned to join the private sector." Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raising this issue again because I'm not sure it was ever really resolved. The "Cause" column for the various resignations contains information that I don't think is accurate, encyclopedic, or relevant. For example, in the future someone may look back on this article to see that Tom Mulcair resigned "to accept an academic appointment" - which, while technically true, is certainly less pertinent to his parliamentary career than his loss of the party leadership. When Judy Foote resigns because of "illness in her family" is it the job of the encyclopedia to repeat that claim, unquestioned - only for her to take up another high-profile public appointment a few months later?

I stand by my previous opinion that the cause of the resignation should only be given if it's something that would practically require them to stop being an MP. Becoming a Senator or Ambassador? Absolutely. Seeking an elected position in a province or municipality? Sure. But anything else, whether it's an "academic appointment," "private sector position," or even just "family reasons" doesn't belong, in my mind, in the encyclopedia. Madg2011 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I wanted to start a discussion about the new infobox. I worry that it may create NPOV problems from partisans on either side who are like "well, let's show that my party won these seats" or "lets show that cumulatively, my party won the popular vote". Then there is also the problem of which parties we include in the lead infobox. When the by-election is called in Outremont, then the NDP will be defending a seat for a by-election. Should they not be included until the writ is dropped?

I think my greatest "concern" (for lack of a better word, because I could care less about whether it stays or goes) with the infobox is that its inclusion does not fit the other articles about federal by-elections. By-elections in the 41st-37th parliaments do not have such an infobox, why does this one need it included?

Again, just trying to see where everyone else is at on this topic.

That being said, I love the inclusion of the map showing which ridings are holding by-elections. Very nice touch! Bkissin (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. I have previously removed a similar infobox from this page. My concern is that it paints the byelections as one cumulative contest, which they pretty patently aren't. If we must have some kind of graphic, I think a summary table like this:

Party	Seats Gained	Seats Held	Seats Lost
Liberal Party of Canada	2	5	0
Conservative Party of Canada	0	5	2

would suffice. Madg2011 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not appropriate for by-election articles to use the same infobox that the regular general election articles use, for exactly the reasons you point out. I like Madg2011's idea of a table much more, though obviously we could fiddle with the design a bit to make it more like an infobox — though if we do that, it should still be a different infobox, with a different structure, than the regular general elections use.
I also just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we're not necessarily permanently locked in to only addressing by-elections as one merged mega-article per parliament — we started doing it this way, instead of standalone articles about each individual by-election, because we used to have a really bad habit of writing substub "the by-election happened on this date, here's the results table, the end" articles that contained not even a fraction as much content or sourcing as special election articles for the United States routinely did. These days, however, there is a lot more attention being paid to actually documenting some genuine substance for each by-election than there was back when the consensus to merge them into one article per parliament was first established — so if somebody wanted to propose that we move back toward spinning out standalone articles again, there's a much stronger case for that now than there was ten years ago. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to organize by-elections by parliament, more so than year, since it is that particular parliament that is affected (particularly in situations where there is either a minority government or a government with a slim majority). However, there's no reason a particularly notable by-election couldn't also have its own article with a link to it from the "By-election to the XX Canadian Parliament" article, eg the February 9, 1942 York South by-election (in which Tory leader Arthur Meighen was defeated by CCF upstart Joe Noseworthy in one of the greatest upsets in Canadian history, or the February 5, 1945 Grey North by-election in which Defence Minister Andrew McNaughton was upset or the August 3, 1943 Cartier by-election that elected Communist Fred Rose. There's also potential for an article on the October 16, 1978 "mini-election" (as it was referred to in the press) that saw 15 by-elections being held simultaneously across the country and was seen as a sort of referendum on the Trudeau government.

As for the infobox, including information like a cumulative popular vote total is misleading and, arguably original research. It's misleading because it's not a representative sample of the electorate - if the by-elections are mostly held say in Conservative ridings then the fact that the Conservatives win the most votes does not actually indicate anything. Saying that the Conservatives cumulatively received 30,000 more votes than the Liberals doesn't really tell us anything. Also, having the pictures of leaders in the infobox is misleading when a party has changed leaders. Andrew Scheer's face is in the infobox but he was not leader during all the by-elections listed. What is significant is not the vote total but a) whether any ridings change hands and b) the swing in the popular vote between the general election and the by-election. But calculating a cumulative swing would also be original research and also may not indicate anything as it would be calculating votes spread out over several years. 2607:F2C0:937D:4000:DD48:23DA:F71D:9C33 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of great points everybody! I like 2607:F2C0:937D:4000:DD48:23DA:F71D:9C33's idea of separating significant by-elections (like the ones they mentioned) into their own articles like they do for the British Parliamentary by-elections. I also think that we are mostly on the same page about the infobox. I think the table might be a good compromise, though if people want to see if a seat changed hands, they can look at the expansive table we have farther down the page, which has a section for whether the party held the seat. Bkissin (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the idea of creating British style by-election articles, but only for by-elections that result in the parties changing. Otherwise, I don't really see the point. --IDW5605 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative election infobox

I suggest using the template:infobox legislative election (right). This infobox does not make it seem like it is one giant election, but rather an ongoing series of elections. It also fixes the partisan POV problem because it doesn't allow users to add up popular vote — while at the same time providing a quick and easy analysis of seat gains and losses in the various by-elections.

Once the Outremont by-election takes place, the NDP would be added as they would have a seat up-for-grabs.--IDW5605 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Leeds Grenville by-election

In the overview chart an IP keeps changing the date of the yet to be called Leeds-Grenville by-election from "writ must be dropped by October 30, 2018" to just "by October 30, 2018". This is incorrect since the by-election can actually be held up to a year after October 30th (although more likely 28 days). Can someone please stop the IP from doing this? Freedom789 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom789: Please don't be angry on this discussion. I'll explain. Freedom, I wan't you to do not add "writ must be dropped by". In this previous versions on this history page. They always include "by mm/dd/yyyy". Now do not add "writ must be dropped" because it was too long and the rectangular shape is too small. You don't need "writ must be dropped by" it's too much wording ant it not an "edit war" and you're edit is wrong. Tell you what. Why don't you try the "Request for Comment". The users will try to support or oppose your proposal. If you're read this. Please pardon my edits and I apologize. 2001:569:7C07:2600:11DB:5187:BFC3:145F (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that your edit changes the meaning and that "by October 30th" on its own is false because that is not the deadline for the actual by-election vote. Do you understand? Freedom789 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom789: Yes. I visit the Elections Canada website. On the vacancies website it says "Latest date to announce by-election". It is October 30, 2018. I recommend you to do not add "writ must be dropped". I sincerely apologize and we don't want to cause another edit war. Please accept my apology. Thank you. 2001:569:7C07:2600:11DB:5187:BFC3:145F (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand only saying by October 30, 2018 makes it look like the by-election must be held by October 30 and is therefore misleading? Freedom789 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 30 is the last date by which Justin Trudeau has to issue the writ to call the by-election — it is not the last date on which the by-election can actually be held. There is no actual deadline on when the by-election has to be held — JT can push it well into 2019 if he wants, the only rule being that he has to announce that by October 30. This is not a purely theoretical exercise, either: before the 2015 election, there were three by-elections (Peterborough, Sudbury and Ottawa West-Nepean) where the 180-day rule meant that by-elections had to be announced, but there wasn't enough time left before the general election to justify actually holding them — so Stephen Harper basically buried them by scheduling them for October 19 (general election day) so that they'd be cancelled by the general election writ, which meant that he was complying with the announcement deadline by "announcing" by-elections that weren't ever actually going to happen. The by-election merely has to be announced within 180 days of a vacancy — but the date on which the by-election actually occurs most certainly can be pushed out a full year or more. As long as the prime minister announces that within 180 days, there's no further deadline on when the by-election actually happens.

Our role here is to be accurate, not to comply with your arbitrary personal standards of succinctness — we don't care if you think the text is too long, because what it has to be first and foremost is accurate, not short. Your version does give readers who don't already know the intricacies of Canadian election law the mistaken impression that the by-election has to happen by October 30 — but again, it can actually happen anytime into 2019 or not at all, and the only thing that actually has to happen by October 30 is Justin Trudeau announcing when the by-election is or isn't happening. So the text has to be clear about that, regardless of whether you think it's too long or not — it's a lot more important for the text to be accurate, and not open to misinterpretation, than it is for it to be short and crispy. And as I warned you on your talk page, as an administrator I will sprot this page if you continue to editwar over this. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burnaby by-election

"under the Parliament of Canada Act the writ for a by-election has to be dropped no later than March 18, 2019"

but also "Due to amendments to the Canada Elections Act that took effect December 2018, a writ for a by-election cannot be dropped within nine months of the fixed date for the next general election. As a result, the cut-off date for the announcement of a by-election for the 42nd Parliament is January 20, 2019. Any vacancies that occur after that date, or any vacant seats that have not had an election writ dropped by that date, will not be filled until the next federal election scheduled for October 21, 2019."

So, is March 18 moot? Or is the seat grandfathered? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

York--Simcoe By-election

Can someone add the National Citizen's Alliance candidate for York--Simcoe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equip77 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Clarify: Is there going to be a by-election for Nanaimo—Ladysmith? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a legal obligation. It's not announced yet, because, according to a source in the Liberal Party, they were waiting after the provincial election in the same area. As the article says, they have legally until July 6 to announce it, but I suppose we can expect it will be announced soon. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's 5 vacancies.

There's five vacancies, heading into the 2019 federal election, not four. GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While you're technically correct, the fifth happened so close to the writ drop that it has no practical significance at all — it's a pure technicality that Murray Rankin resigned a week before the writ instead of just waiting out the writ and not reoffering. So it should probably still be noted here for completeness' sake, but its lack of any meaningful impact explains why it keeps getting overlooked. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]