Detailed numbers on the election

[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.

[wd9]

What it has shown is that farmers for the most part support the board. Cold hard arms length reality in the spin and is good enough for the government.

[dmlfarmer]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply asking how you know: (quote) "Factor in the 42% return rate on ballots and the monopolists are down to 24% of potential ballots." I am challenging you to explain how you know how the 58% would have voted had they sent in a ballot.

Now you claim that the low voter turnout means (quote) "most farmers for what ever reason find the voting process and these elections irrelevant." I disagree. All it shows is that most farmers chose not to vote. That is their perogative. It does not mean most farmers disagreed with the status quo any more than they approved of it. In the last Alberta provincial election only 41% of the electorate cast a ballot, less then the percentage of farmers that voted in these CWB director elections. Yet I doubt if most Albertans would say they disagreed with the election process.

Finally you state: (quote) “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.” However, we also know for sure that in this election an even smaller number of people voted for people who did not support the single desk concept. So when you conclude: (quote) “ 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” Therefore, using your own argument, you have to also admit the idea of the removal of the single desk is even less popular.

My whole point is you are as guilty of trying to spin the election results as the CWB is.

[charliep]

Don't know what the district voter split was but assuming 25,000 in total for the 5 districts equals about 5,000 per district. That would mean a range of 33 % in district 1 to 68 % in district 3. After the fact, it would be interesting to see why the difference in districts. What happened in some districts that got farmers out to vote and not other districts. Maybe the issues around durum ignited the passions of district 3. Maybe candidates worked harder.

Whenever you guys get mired in the discussion of single desk politics, I pinch myself to provide a reminder the CWB is a $5 plus billion business (likely over $7 billion again in 2010/11) that reflects impacts about one third of the average grain farmers gross income.

[charliep]

Perhaps the economist in me but interesting to look at the numbers.

$5 to $7 billion spread over 10 districts is $700 million per district. For a nice round number, 5,000 per district means every farmer has a $100,000 to $140,000 gross farm income stake in the direction of the CWB.

[Fransisco]

Good grief DLM!! Re-read your own post and you will see that I am not assuming that those who didn't vote are in favour of anything. You can't say they're in favour of choice or the monopoly.

As an aside I don't think any of the candidates openly declared themselves to be in favour of choice anyways. You got to choose between single desk monopolists and those who wanted to tinker with a few things other than the single desk.

I'm not playing mind reader here as you allege. But I'm also not buying into the notion that a large number of people not voting doesn't mean anything. It does.

If this is supposed to be a "farmer" organization that "farmers" care so deeply about then why are so many "farmers" not engaged enough in the process to fill out a simple piece of paper?

In my opinion the answer to that question is far more troublsome to the single desk cause than it is to the choice banner. Call it spin if you want but if you think of these elections as a product most people aren't buying it.

Its not the choice side who came up with these kooky elections. Its not their product. Its a Liberal/CWB product. And it has not had the desired affect of making farmers feel like they have any kind of say or influence over anything the board does. Nor do they feel like the board is "theirs". If any of this were true they would vote on mass. Because it mattered to them. The opposite is happening and again in my opinion I think its because to most farmers the board doesn't really matter.

If the board doesn't really matter to most farmers, or most don't give a rip one way or the other about it, then what justification is there for depriving them of the right to do with their property, their grain, what ever it is that they want to do with it?

I'm sorry but beating your chest and shouting "democracy" just doesn't cut it. If you want to deprive people of their inalienable rights you are going to have to do much better than that!