Detailed numbers on the election

[Fransisco]

http://www.cwbelection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/2010-DETAILED-FINAL-RESULTS.pdf

[Fransisco]

So when I add it all up there were 11,402 ballots sent back. Of that 5776 of them went to candidate who were clearly in favour of the monopoly.

That works out to 50.6% of total returned ballots for the monopoly. On top of this only something like 41 or 42% of the ballots got returned.

The board and its groupies point to these election results and say, look at how popular the monopoly is with farmers. Let`s be generous and say that 25% of eligible votes went for the single desk. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of anything.

[silverback]

According to one of the posters on this site who adamantly supports the board, they only grow 10 - 20 % board crops a year but need the board to market that crop because they are too "busy" on marketing their lentils, chickpeas, canola, peas, etc...

It is obvious that there are many farms out there that are able to grow crops in the exact same way but could care less what the board does with that 10 - 20 % of their production. They don't support the board and are proving it with their drill and couldn't be bothered to even vote one way or the other.

[Fransisco]

Oops, I didn't do that quite right. Let me do this again.

[wd9]

Well i guess we don't have to talk about the CWB now until the next election. We know for absolute certainty the government will not make a change to the cwb.

Should free up a lot of server space at agriville.

[Fransisco]

Okay, based on the final ballots

On the single desk side of the equation we have:

Dan Gauthier 786
Stewart Wells 1,872
Allen L. Oberg 1,156
Kyle Korneychuk 1,383
John Sandborn 1,365

Total 6562

On the moderate side we have:

Henry Vos 817
Brian J. Otto 1,558
Vicki A. Dutton 662
Terry V. Youzwa 1,039
Ernie Sirski 692

total 4768

Grand total of 11,330

So monopolists got 57.9 %
moderates got 42.1%

Factor in the 42% return rate on ballots and the monopolists are down to 24% of potential ballots.

Like I said before hardly a ringing endorsement of anything.

[charliep]

Did find interesting the number of farmers who didn't use the preferential ballot to show their 2nd and 3rd choices.

[Fransisco]

I think a lot of guys don't really know how the preferential ballot system works.

[Fransisco]

Add in the wheat boards own producer survey numbers and the barley plebiscite and the thing looks about as popular as a porcupine in a nudist colony.

[riders2010]

Well that would depend if you were the nudist or the porcupine!!!! lmao!!!

[Fransisco]

Here's an Oberg quote from the grope and flail.

“Our numbers tell us that farmers are generally supportive of the organization. I think this election confirmed that.”

Once again showing that the ability to understand numbers is not a major requirement in a wheat board director but being able to spin them is.

[dmlfarmer]

Ha! Ha! Ha! LMAO at Fran complaining about CWB spinning the numbers, yet he assumes with his math that every voter who did not cast a ballot supports ending the single desk. Do tell me Fran, how you know what is in the mind of every voter who did not vote. Are you God?

So even in district one where the incumbant and winner Vos supports choice, it was only choice supporters who did not cast ballots?

Lets assume you are right in your assumption for a minute. Then this would mean 15,560 prochoice farmers simply could not be bothered to vote for changing the system. Wow! Not exactly a ringing endorsement of open market and definately not the stats that would encourage the government to take any action.

Oh, wait. If everyone who does not cast a ballot is voting against the current situation, as Fran seems to believe, then in the 2008 federal election where the Conservatives only got 37.6% of the popular vote on a voter turnout of 59.1% of the electorate, using Frans analysis that means only 22.22% of Canadians support the federal Conservatives. Why that is less that the number of voters who support the CWB single desk! No wonder they do not work to change it. Ha Ha Ha!

Oh no, the numbers are even worse if some single desk supporter decidies says only single desk supporters did not vote. Cause if he is right then actually only 42% of the 42% of those who cast ballots support choice. By this equally irrelivant logic, a single desk support chould argue this election shows only 17.6% of farmers want to end the CWB single desk.

The only thing worse that statistics are idiots who try to spin them!

[Fransisco]

dlm you're putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.

All I'm doing is putting the results into their full context. You can choose to ignore the unreturned ballots just as the CWB does. But there is a message in them. And that is that most farmers for what ever reason find the voting process and these elections irrelevant. That is a much bigger story in than who won and who lost. Which is why monopolists ignore it.

[Fransisco]

Let me put this a different way.

I am not looking at what we don't know I am looking at what we do know. Which is that a very small number of the total ballots went to people we know for sure are in favour of the status quo monopoly.

If you are looking at this election as a measuring stick for the popularity of the monopoly. Then the only conclusion you can draw is that most farmers don't care one way or the other about it. Which means it is not very popular.

[wd9]

Fran, that is quite a leap to say that about non returned ballots. Those wanting to invoke change, the moderists, would more likely vote. You simply do not know what unreturned ballots would contain.