Talk:2010 Alberta municipal elections

Withdrawals

How are we going to address candidates withdrawing after nomination day, as in the case of Whitecourt, Edmonton, and presumably others to come? Hwy43 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove them from the list I guess. I researched the results for the 2007 election after the fact, so it is easy to say write it as it will appear after the election, but that hasn't worked out for me on Edmonton. 117Avenue (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I will remove them. Including them will add unnecessary clutter. Also, withdrawals get less notable as time passes. I'll continuing plugging away (although I'm not looking forward to adding all 26 remaining councillor candidates to Okotoks' table). Hwy43 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lacombe

If I did the percentages for the councillors incorrectly again this time, please advise of the proper methodology. (I summed all the votes received by the nine councillor candidates, divided the sum by the six available positions, and then determined the percentages from that number.) Hwy43 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was really hoping that all the results would stick around until I had time to do this. I am not sure what the correct way is, dividing by the number of elected councillors, should be similar to total votes for mayor, which is what I did for all but the two where the mayor was acclaimed. I have found in some cases that the report includes spoiled ballots in the total number of votes, but I figure using the total number of votes for mayor makes sense, as this math can checked, and should prevent anyone from changing it to the apparent total. 117Avenue (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is the correct way either. Have you used the above described methodology for all others completed in this article to date? If so, my future contributions will use the same methodology. Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How should we calculate councillor percentages then in cases where the mayor was acclaimed? Hwy43 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the total number of votes, and divided by the number of councillors. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that is the same method I originally used for the Lacombe councillors, so we now have inconsistent methodology within the article. Suggestions to rectify? Hwy43 (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Does it really matter? I guess the responsible thing would be to remove the column, (unless the source also provides the total number of ballots), as it is original research. 117Avenue (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the column is another option, as would be determining the consensus methodology the municipalities are using and implement that. Implementing an inconsistent methodology makes the article vulnerable to controversy, but such may never materialize if no one else takes an interest in it at a detailed level. Hwy43 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I found a total number of ballots for the towns in question, but not the cities. 117Avenue (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there could have been more ballots for councillors than mayor. Based on the mayoral vote turnout, there was 4.76 councillors per ballot. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lacombe media release indicates a total of 2,932 votes cast, which is greater than both the sum of votes for mayor (2,876) and the sum of votes for the six councillor positions (2,282.333 assuming all ballots had six councillors selected). For mayor, likely explanations are spoiled ballots or no selection of a mayoral candidate. For councillors, likely explanations are voters not selecting the maximum six candidates on their ballots for the councillor positions, spoiled ballots, or no selection of a single councillor candidate whatsoever. Hwy43 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Crownsnest Pass

Re: Crowsnest Pass. They were calling themselves 'Municipality of' before 2008? Do you know when this started? 117Avenue (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

From the dawn of its time. Hwy43 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter, I was just interested. 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Remaining results

I now have all the results for the remaining towns, as well as Mackenzie County. I will start plugging these in this evening. Efforts to begin posting the results for the municipal districts would be appreciated. Hwy43 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought you weren't interested in filling this out, that's why it has stood so long out of date. I was prepared to do the whole thing myself. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you'd make that observation and comment. ;o) The first one took longer than I expected. As I was busy at that time, I decided just to locate the results for the towns and specialized municipalities in early November and wait for a lull or for help to come along before revisiting. Both came along at the same time. Would you like to complete the MDs? I haven't located the results for them yet. Thanks for letting me assist.

Also, what do you feel about reducing the threshold from 8,000 to 7,500? The 7,500 threshold is more logical than the 8,000 threshold as it represents the halfway-point between the significant 5,000 and 10,000 thresholds. The 8,000 threshold represents a less logical 60%-mark between 5,000 and 10,000. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually thought I may have to make it higher, if I couldn't find results. I guess it only works out to three towns, and will keep Drumheller from being questionable, if you can find sources go ahead. I'll do the MDs when I have time. 117Avenue (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added the results for the three towns, but have yet to determine incumbents for Taber in its table (Taber Times article may indicate, but web site is down... will revisit tomorrow). Also have yet to include school division election info in the paragraph for each as I don't know how you determined that for the others. Your assistance on this would be appreciated.

Note that reducing the threshold to 7,500 for MDs would work out to three more as well – Athabasca County, Camrose County, and the County of Vermilion River (based on corrected federal census counts or municipal censuses). However it maybe discovered that finding results for MDs may be more difficult than finding the same for towns and cities anyway, so this note may be moot. Hwy43 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In time, in time. I don't want to be on Wikipedia all the time. Speaking of websites not working, did the Drumheller link become dead since you visited? There's no results at the URL you posted. 117Avenue (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that is the case. Hwy43 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have found with the Municipal Districts:

• Stopping at 10,000 based on 2006 census data, provides 14 full election results.
• Stopping at 10,000 based on most recent census, adds Lac Ste. Anne County with no results.
• Stopping at 9,000 based on most recent/2006, adds Lac La Biche County with full results.
• Stopping at 8,000 based on most recent/2006, adds Ponoka County with no results, & Wheatland County with 4 of 7 wards.
• Stopping at ~7,750 based on most recent census, adds County of Vermilion River with full results.
• Stopping at 7,500 based on most recent census, adds Athabasca County & Camrose County both with full results.

(Of course the 2011 census will trump all this, because it is the closest census to election day.) What do you think about where the line should be drawn? Since the last two don't have results, it shouldn't stay at 8,000; I think it would be acceptable to drop it to 7,500, since the last three will have results. 117Avenue (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have dropped it to 7,500, but after sleeping on it last night, I worry that there may be even more towns and MDs to be added after the census, and this page will become too long. 8,000 is a nice round number. 117Avenue (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the consistent population threshold among all municipal status types. It is difficult to effectively rationalize why one threshold is different from the threshold used in the balance of the municipal status types.

This article is about a historic event – a snapshot of municipal voter opinion in 2010. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to revisit this article in 2012 (when the 2011 census results are released) to add those municipalities to this article that had a population in excess of 7,500 a year later. In doing so, we would be speculating that a municipality had eclipsed the threshold in 2010.

Since Alberta's municipal elections are mandated by legislation under the authority of Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA), and since AMA publishes an Official Population List (OPL) on an annual basis, I suggest that the OPL of the same year as the election be the official final source for which municipalities to include in the article. We’ve used the 2009 OPL as the interim source thus far in absence of the 2010 OPL being released (AMA is late in releasing it this year).

For example in the 2013 elections, we would use the 2012 OPL (which is expected to reflect the 2011 federal census counts, as amended by 2011 and 2012 municipal censuses accepted by AMA) as the interim source to build the 2013 article in advance of the election. We would then finalize the article after both the election is complete and the 2013 OPL is released.

In the meantime, after the 2011 federal census results are released in early 2012, we can review how many municipalities now exceed the 7,500 threshold and consider raising it if necessary for the 2013 article, or consider other options. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The federal government can't do anything fast can they? I was hoping for at least population results by July or August. I was also wondering why you hadn't added the 2010 results yet. I was thinking about adding Brazeau County, and the Towns of Olds and Drayton Valley, in hidden sections, then reassessing when more data comes out. 117Avenue (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One month faster this time around! Although they were supposed to be one month faster in 2006 compared to 2001, but that didn't happen. StatCan blamed the delayed 2006 release on delayed enumeration in Alberta (due to its hot economy at that time), whether that was a legitimate delay or not.

If by wondering why I hadn't added the 2010 results yet, you meant how I've yet to add any 2010 results to the various municipality lists, the reason is I am awaiting the 2010 OPL so those articles would only have one consistent reference about latest municipal census results (excepting Calgary Region as someone else keenly started adding them as they were released by municipalities this year).

Regarding Brazeau, Drayton, and Olds, unless the 2010 OPL confirms a population in excess of 7,500 in those municipalities as a result of a 2010 municipal census, I wouldn't add them. Otherwise, it is speculation. I monitor nearly all official municipal websites on a regular basis, as well as local newspaper websites, and have found no mention of them conducting a municipal census in 2010.

Personally, I am doubtful in speculating Brazeau and Drayton has eclipsed the threshold anyway due to the downturn in oil and gas and the closure of a lumber mill in Drayton sometime after 2006. As for Olds, it is probable that will have passed the threshold by 2011 due to the momentum of its growth between 2001 and 2006 despite the economic downturn. However one thing that casts some doubt in my mind is the town itself chose not to conduct an intercensal estimate between 2006 and 2011 after doing one municipal count between each federal census between 1991 2006. Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant about the 2010 results. I hadn't considered the respective community's economies, I just used the 2001-2006 growth rate to estimate 2011, for quick numbers. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)