Talk:2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election

Colours for candidates

@Darryl Kerrigan: I went on the websites of the candidates and grabbed one of the main colours used in each of their logos. They are as follows:

• Haddad: #174A47
• Howard: #370B36
• Kuttner: #663399
• Lascaris: #2F539E
• Merner: #3d9b35
• Murray: #B7C646
• Paul: #3CB4E9
• West: #217039

Assuming you do not want a colour too close to the party's official one, Merner's can be changed to #FFE900. -- HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 21:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am not overly invested in what colour each candidate receives. I think some are worried about the symbolism of particular colours, but I am not overly concerned about that. The principle concern should be that we are consistent in using colours that will work on a map (if one is going to be included, see the discussion above on that point), and that we use the same colours in the graph. I am not sure how to recode the colours in the fundraising graph, but I think we should be consistent so it is easier to understand the article. I do not care, if we go with the colour scheme currently used in the graph, the one you are proposing or the one that existed before your edit. Whatever colours we settle on though should be distinctive enough to easily differentiate in the graph (and on a map, incase one is used). The map issue may turn out not to be an issue though (as noted above).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO while it's generally good practice to use the colour a candidate themselves uses, clarity should be the foremost concern. The main purpose of the colours is for maps, graphs and charts, and if the colours aren't very easily distinguished, then that colour scheme isn't actually doing much good. To that end, using three shades of green, two purples and two blues poses a problem— especially when they get put on the map, and the colour gets darken or lighten a candidate's colour to indicate a wider or closer victory (as is standard practice in electoral maps). The old scheme was arbitrary in many cases, yes, but there would be no confusion about which colour is for which candidate. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, from what I've seen on other pages, shades of the same colour can be used and are allowed provided that they are distinguishable. I believe the majority of the colours I selected met that criteria. If there is one or more that does not, we could always discuss those on an individual basis. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we all in agreement that the same colour should be used in the infobox, graph, and any map (if one is added to the article)? If so, can we change the colours one way or the other so they are consistent between the graph and infobox while we continue to discuss this?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not think all the colours are easily distinguishable and do not see any significant benefit to adopting this the new scheme is supposed to accomplish. Matching what a candidate or party uses has never been the only criteria for selecting colours in these contests on Wikipedia; just peek at any US primary map. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of the colours are already very similar: there are two shades of light blue (one is slightly more green-tinted but it's hard to tell at first glance), a light red and pink, etc. If your statement is true, then we should change those as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 23:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to formatting/presentation of electoral results

I have added a row for 'exhausted' ballots which I believe was left out by mistake in good faith by other earlier editors, since (unlike most other ranked-ballot elections) they are still kept in the "pool" of eligible voters after being eliminated and therefore matter in counting toward the relevant eventual outcome. Thanks and regards, 142.157.244.236 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Debates

The debate section is missing a debate on climate change sponsored by the Ontario Clean Energy Alliance. The debate took place on Friday, 18 September 2020 from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM (EDT). There is a recording on Facebook at <http://post.spmailtechnol.com/f/a/8rQlG_H1vpcOBRoHqITHvQ~~/AAQxAQA~/RgRhSOKCP0RIaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tL3dhdGNoLz92PTk1OTY3NjA1MTE3NDg2NyZleHRpZD1hSFZYcjJGV3pJTWpqcjU1VwNzcGNCCgBHAq9nX5uMoMdSFGhpdGNoY2tkQG1jbWFzdGVyLmNhWAQAAAAA> and a recording on YouTube at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EKt0Y2fM6Y>. All eight candidates participated. The debate was in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Hamiltonian (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew West in the infobox?

I don't really have strong feelings either way, but I note that we have included Andrew West in the infobox despite him only receiving 1.47% in the first round. Usually, the guideline for inclusion is 5%. In this case doing that would leave only Meryam Haddad on the last line, which may not be ideal. Anyway, I think we are free to deviate from the guideline if we wish, but I thought perhaps we should at least consider whether we should.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I think we just left in all the candidates after the election instead of reconsidering it after the results were known. I note that at least one editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums has called the infobox here "abominable" because it has too many candidates in it and thus is not a concise summary. Maybe we should consider removing Meryam Haddad too or other candidates as well. I know the guideline is 5%, not sure if we should go by that or not in multiple round (run-off) elections. Perhaps, she and possibly others who were eliminated early should not be in the concise infobox. There is already lots of coverage of her (and all the candidates) in the candidates section, results section, timeline and debates section. It's not like removing her, Andrew West, and potentially others would leave readers with the impression that there weren't other candidates besides from the ones remaining in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I think the other editor is right that the infobox here is listing too much (although I also think you've correctly identified why it ended up like this)— it's very rare to see one of these infoboxes with all three rows, unless it's a very busy parliamentary election. So I do think we could stand to make the infobox more concise. A 5% threshold would help, but perhaps we could take a page from 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election and list only the top-two finishers. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind leaving in at least the top three. That way people will note at first glance that it was a runoff election and some were eliminated before the final round.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I have WP:BOLDly cut the infobox down to the top three. Happy for someone to revert and discuss here if they disagree.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The concern I have is that three candidates in the box makes is that, because there's only one candidate listed as eliminated, it looks as if it was a three-candidate race decided on the second ballot. Obviously this notion is broken if one considers the percentages there, but I'm just thinking about how it looks at a glance. I think two is still the better option, but three is still better than it was before so I'm not opposed to leaving it as-is. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have strong feelings about it, although I don't love the idea of just having just two candidates. Do you think it would be better with four candidates? Then there would be two on the top row and two (eliminated earlier) on the second row. We could also do six candidates but that starts to get a bit less concise (and would have Howard on the top, despite her being eliminated before the last round). We could also add another row of round results (under each candidate), although that might be more confusing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Four candidates works IMO. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's try that then. I am sure if someone disagrees, they will let us know. I don't know if two rows are the best, but there really isn't a perfect solution.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think two would be better, but, just like other people, I really don't have a strong opinion. I think two candidates is better for elections using ranked-choice voting, because they are designed to narrow down to just two candidates. For example, the infobox in 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election has two candidates, despite there having been many more in the other rounds, just like this one. Here is a an example of how the infobox would look with just two candidates. DrOwl19 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Reflecting on this since, I think it makes sense in particular to include Amita Kuttner in the infobox, since about a year later they became the interim leader. I have boldly added Merner and Kuttner back into the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)