Talk:2023 Alberta general election

Green Party of Alberta

Could somebody re-add the Green Party of Alberta and Leader Jordan Wilkie to the header? The GPA is currently polling at 5-6% (in polls in which they are included), ahead of both ABP and WIP. 142.110.39.187 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the Greens should be included or not, but we might want to discuss whether or not WIP should be in the infobox. They're not running any candidates (yet), and are polling in the 1-2% range. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the Greens would need to be in the ~5% range for a few polls, not just one or two. Alternatively, they would need a MLA to be in the infobox. I don't have strong opinion about WIP but agree that the fact that they are polling quite badly and have no MLAs means that they might not belong there. That said, I don't think we should be too worried about rushing to remove them. In the last Ontario election we were pretty permissive with other new upstart New Blue and relaunched Ontario Party. They were removed after the election when they failed to receive 5% of the vote. But if WIP doesn't run candidates by the deadline they definitely should be removed (same goes for any other party that doesn't field any candidates).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ABP is polling 3-4% right now, and do not have any sitting MLAs. If 5% or MLA are the criteria, then no 3rd party should be included. 2605:B100:72C:F889:E140:149C:FEA:5FB (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the Greens in the infobox. They aren't even included in most polls. On the other hand, I would be in favour of removing the WIP from the infobox. They have tanked in the polls within the last year, and haven't announced any candidates yet.

At this point, the Alberta Party is the only third party that should be in the infobox because: 1. They got 9% last time. 2. They are included in every poll and receive around 5%. Skylerbuck (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I oppose adding the Greens for now, there is not enough supporting data yet from multiple pollsters. I would support removing the WIP, as they have collapsed from their polling heights to below the 5% level and, as far as I can tell, are no longer receiving significant media coverage. So, they have lost the two reasons for which they were originally added. I support keeping the AB Party as they do consistently hit 5% - half the polls in 2023 so far have them at 5% or above. There is also a precedent on Canadian election pages that takes into account that their previous election result reached the 5% threshold. Lilactree201 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Echoing the calls to remove WIP from the infobox, and would recommend we think about doing so for the Alberta Party as well, particularly if they fail to meet a significant candidate threshold following the May 11 candidate deadline. Jebussez (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

My preference for the infobox as the campaign starts - oppose Greens, keep AB party, remove WIP. Hard to distinguish among the minor parties for inbox worthiness at this point besides AB party's previous result, and often reaching 5%.5.148.27.26 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove WIP in the infobox

WIP is now polling under 5%, the only reason the WIP is added because it polled above 5% in 2020-2022, I think we should remove it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousioss (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a great reason to favour them with infobox coverage over the Liberals or Greens anymore. Maybe even less reason, given how few candidates they've nominated. Kiltarni (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I support removal. WIP have such weak polling now, for example polling below the Liberal party since October 2022, so having them in the info box seems like an unearned advantage compared to some other small parties. 86.12.163.51 (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Alberta Party in Infobox

It's time folks. The Alberta Party is now polling exclusively below 10%, well below their 2019 support, and now struggles to maintain a 5% average. They have sub-30 candidates and as of writing this, looking at the Elections Alberta page post-candidate deadline, they may have sub-20. They are not expected to win any seats, including their former stronghold of Calgary-Elbow, and very unlikely to win their leader's seat in Brooks-Medicine Hat where Smith is running. It's time we take them out of the infobox. Jebussez (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If a party can't run in at least 50% of the ridings, they shouldn't be in the infobox (unless they have seats or are polling well).-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. They received over 5% of the vote last election. That is our usual test for inclusion before the election occurs. They should remain in the infobox until election results are known. If they recive less than 5% this election, and elect no one, we will remove them then. It is not for us to predict that will happen though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

At their current polling levels, which to simplify we will say are about 5%, they'd be lucky to hit 2% of the vote province-wide given their lack of candidates and ability to have voters actually vote for them. That's mathematics. You cannot find a credible non-partisan source that claims they have a chance at winning anywhere in the 19 seats they're running. I just don't see the justification, they did well in 2019 I agree, but it is very clear they're not going to catch up to that result this time, let alone win a seat. Jebussez (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not mathematics, it is prognostication. It is still mathematically possible that they receive 5%. It is also completely possible, that they win seat(s). It might be unlikely, but that isn't the same thing. As a general rule for Canadian elections articles, once a party has a seat or over 5% in the last election (2019), we do not reassess their inclusion until after the results are known (for 2023). The Greens and WIP were removed because they never warranted inclusion in the first place (as they didn't have a seat or 5% in the 2019 election). There is no need to look at polls for the Alberta Party, and we shouldn't. Their results from the last election mean they are included here. If once the result are know, they have won a seat or 5% of the 2023 vote, they will be included post-election. If they don't, they will likely be removed post-election. Though, I guess we could also decide to include them to show the decline of that party. It is a bad idea for us to start second guessing whether established parties are going to do well, before results are known. We shouldn't decide that. It is a different consideration for parties without a track record, or claiming they are about to emerge.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning to a degree regarding the previous results given I've spent some time looking through previous pages and see it is a consistent standard. While I disagree with that standard and believe we should set a new one, I'll accept the status quo if the majority of editors don't wish to mess with it. I won't accept them staying in the infobox however if they are, as I believe, entirely DOA (no significant vote share, no seat) even if they end third in votes - that is not a practice I've seen elsewhere, such as the 2011 Saskatchewan election with the Liberals or 2020 New Brunswick election with the NDP. Jebussez (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard on Wikipedia is to go by reliable sources to determine what are the major parties running in the election. Are any reliable sources treating the Alberta Party as anything other than a bunch of also-rans? No, of course not. This is a two-horse race. We're not prognosticating, we are just reflecting reality by believing the Alberta Party does not belong in the infobox.-- Earl Andrew - talk 12:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

What polls or RS specifically do you say we should look at to decide to exclude the Alberta Party? There is a reason we don't go down this road for established parties that received 9% of the vote in the last election. What test could we apply, that isn't just us substituting our opinion? The Alberta Party has received 5% in many polls (above in a few, below in a few more). The last poll has them at 5%. Is your argument that we should remove them because in your opinion they are an "also ran" party? Doesn't seem like a good reason to deviate from the general rule. What is the harm in including this established party in the infobox at least until results are known?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if we were to do a random sampling of election news stories from mainstream news outlets, we would find that the Alberta Party is rarely mentioned if at all. And yes, Abacus has them at 5%, but Mainstreet has them at 2%. If we want to rely on polling alone, then maybe we could wait a bit to see if their average dips below 4% consistently, which I suspect it will as they're not running many candidates.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

My point is that for parties that have proven that they can elect candidates, or who have recieved over 5% in the last election, we shouldn't second guess them before the election. Beyond being rather subjective, it is a waste of our time. It isn't useful for us to debate which RS we should look at, and which we should ignore. It isn't useful for us to debate whick polls are significant. They received 9% in the last election. That should be the end of the question until election results prove different. Personally, I would prefer not to debate this everytime an previously established party seems to be having a difficult election year. Why do you think we should deviate from the long established general rule?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The over-arching rule on Wikipedia is to base our decisions on Reliable Sources. When it comes to edge cases, it makes sense to go by long established rules, but I don't think it makes sense in this instance. It is so clear cut in my opinion that the AP does not belong in the infobox, that I didn't think it would even be controversial. However, you disagree which is why we're having this debate.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I expect the Alberta Party will fall short. Still I would rather not decide that based on my own prediction, or any of our views about how "clear cut" that prediction is. The general rule is worth adhering to. If we scrap it we will have a lot more of these debates every election cycle. Frankly, I don't think it is useful for us to argue about which RS and which polls to rely on (which to ignore) when making these calls. Where a party has a seat or received 5% in the last election, I am happy to provide the party the benefit of the doubt until the election. That is my understanding of the prevailing consensus on Canadian Election articles. It avoids us debating polls and RS, and shields us from POV allegations where we decide to "delegitimize" an established party. If you are right and they fall short, it sounds like they will be removed on May 29, 2023. At that time, the result will be clear and plain. It will not be subject to our own bias and ability to gaze into crystal balls. So again, I don't see the harm in having them remain, until results are known, as tradition would dictate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the real issue is that they are entering the election without any representation and according to all respected seat projection models have zero chance of winning any representation. It's standard convention in Canadian elections to include third, fourth or even fifth parties in info boxes if they have seats in parliament or are believed to have decent odds of winning at least some representation, but not if they have zero seats and will likely finish with zero (and particularly not if they aren't running a full slate of candidates). What's next, the Libertarian and Communist parties of Canada in federal election infoboxes? If you go back, the Alberta Party was only first included when they actually won a seat in 2012. If they had least had one incumbent it would be different, but including them gives status to a party whose support and prospects don't seem to warrant it. Alberta seems very much to be developing a party system similar to Saskatchewan (strict duopoly, orange versus blue). Chris Gilmore

It is settled that parties which are on over ~5% (and in this case, almost 10%) at the last election should be shown. PPC was shown for 2021 for example. I don't see why this is of much importance whatsoever, we are merely respecting generally accepted precedent. If they do fail to win any seats and get 3% or so, they will be removed. That has not happened yet, and our first source should be the last election, in which the Alberta party got over 9%, which is certainly enough to be included. Quinby (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Leader's Seat

Once the election started they don't have a seat. They only have a riding they are running in. 2001:1970:5A67:6500:D8EA:E75A:9183:B1 (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in theory. But they do maintain their offices, staff, some duties, and pay.[1] In any event, "leader's seat" is what is included in the template. Here is likely not the place to change it. Doing so would likely need a broader consensus at WP:CANADA or WP:WPE&R.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Debates Section, and perhaps Campaign

A section about the leaders' debate, and any other prominent debates would be a useful addition. I have added the May 18 debate to the timeline, and created a stub of a section about it. Please help expand it. Perhaps it should be incorporated into a larger section about the campaign. Thanks.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Election Map

I have commented out/hid the map. This isn't needed until we have results. There is no need for a blank map of Alberta. Also there is no need to perpetuate the assumption that only NDP and UCP will win seats, even if that is the most likely outcome.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It's actually not perpetuating any assumption. Talleyrand6 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

When you include only two parties, it assumes only two parties will win seats. There is no need for Wikipedia to make that assumption at this time. There is no need for a map to be included in the article at all at this point. There are no results to show in it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I have never seen anyone care about making an 'assumption' (when it's true) on a map. You're being a silly goose. Grow up. Talleyrand6 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

So you admit it is an assumption. One that is not WP:NPOV. You do not have consensus to include this. I am not going to edit war with you about it, but I recommend you remove it until you obtain such a consensus. Ignoring the arguments and resorting to name calling, even as light as "silly goose" is not particularly helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)