Talk:2021 Canadian federal election

I see that the previous discussions around the inclusion of Maxime Bernier and the PPC in the infobox have been archived, but since there was no general consensus reached, I'd like to re-open it here - especially since we are well past the actual election date.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