Detailed numbers on the election

[Fransisco]

I don't think that they are that confident. That's why they get so uptight when you show them the numbers.

[wd9]

Francisco, you are in a bit of a dream world. The reality is farmers support the single desk for western canada. All your speculation, justifications, and voting math gymnastics mean nothing in the real world.

[jdepape]

I don't think you can say that because the CWB directors' election went one way or another that this represents farmers thoughts on the single desk.

I was a scrutineer two years ago and I was talking to someone who was a scrutineer this year. Both times there were many ballots that voted "1" for a "pro-single desk" candidate and "2" for a "pro-choice" candidate - or vice versa.

Not a resounding endorsement for either.

[Fransisco]

okay wd9, what evidence is there then that backs up your assertion?

[mustardman]

Francsco the Evidence is we won the election

[Fransisco]

Most farmers didn't vote.

[wd9]

Government doesn't look at who might have voted, they look at who got elected. Just as many farm groups want the board as get rid of it so they cancel out. I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but you have NO proof of how the rest would have voted and any government movement on the decision on what to do with the board is based on how things are, not how you think they might be.

We all can see the election results and speculate, but the only thing that matters is who got voted in. That is my proof. Yours is mere speculation. No amount of trips to Ottawa will change the facts. I'm not a board supporter, but apparently the majority are. That is fact.

[charliep]

I absolutely detest the royal "WE".

I suppose you mean the CWB as a political statement picked individual who support single desk.

I hope the elected representatives are able to provide leadership, strategic direction and performance monitoring for a $6 billion (picking a mid point)business. This organization is changing to meet farmers business needs, its own risk management needs and that of the supply chain/customers. The board of directors and CWB leadership have significant challenges ahead.

[Fransisco]

If most farmers didn't vote in the director elections then you can not say that the "majority" support the single desk. You also can't pretend that those who didn't vote don't matter. They do. They are still human beings, they are still farmers and their rights are still being trampled on.

[charliep]

If you don't think things are changing, feed wheat can be close to cash priced (albeit in a program that relates to the pooling system). No comments from single desk supporters whether this deviation from the price pooling is good or addressing the risk/cost of offering these types of programs.

[AdamSmith]

From what I can see this election result is no different than all the others with the clear winner being FARMER APATHY.

Just as in other elections candidates who supported the monopoly got more votes than farmers who sat on the fence.

But guys, reality is Director elections are just that, elections for directors, they are not a plebicite on the popularity of the cwb or support for or not for the monopoly.

Most farmers see it that way. The reason it was 42% turnout was it's almost impossible to make an informed decision in a vacuum of polorized rhetoric. JDePape made a valiant effort to bring some real issues to light but unless your "tuned in" your not going to get the message.

The previous director for zone 9 (my district) was Bill Nicholson (sp?)the only thing I knew for sure was he was a hard line monopoly supporter. I have zero clue whether he was a competant director. He may have been but who would know. I have zero clue whether directors do influence policy or if they just rubber stamp managements policies and decisions?

So to this end I did vote but I realy didn't think it mattered one way or the other who won.

True change can only come from Ottawa and I just hope Ottawa doesn't put alot of stock in these elections to guide them on policy. There are just too many REAL FARMERS tuned out and turned off by this process.

[jdepape]

wd9:

Just like you said to Fran, you can't speculate how the rest would vote. All we can say is the majority of <b> those that voted </b> support the CWB.

OR - only 24% of eligible farmers that support the CWB felt it was important enough to vote. (Where were all the other staunch CWB supporter?)

I think it's safe to also say that all the farmers who didn't vote didn't think it way important enough to do so. They may support the single desk or hate it - either way, they just don't care. Just like all the people that don't vote in provincial or federal elections.

I wonder how many staunch CWB & single desk supporters figured it wasn't important to vote?

[dmlfarmer]

You are exactly right jdpape. And by the same token:
OR - only 17.7% of eligible farmers voted for "change" candidates.(Where were all the other STAUNCH "change" supporters.)

[dmlfarmer]

You are exactly right jdpape. And by the same token:
OR - only 17.7% of eligible farmers voted for "change" candidates.(Where were all the other STAUNCH "change" supporters.)

[TOM4CWB]

dmlfarmer,

I would be VERY interested to know how many CWB single desk supporters voted 2,3,4, or 5 times... and how this compared to choice voters.

I know of choice voters that used their full 'franchise' in the past... that only voted ONE time in this most recent election.

This election is so corrupt I don't know how anyone can take it as a serious indication of anything!!!!

How many 'single desk' supporters have multiple permit books???

In our case we had land covering close to 9000ac... and not one eligible vote according to the CWB.

I refuse to be dishonest to get a CWB vote... which is all multiple permits holders and suffixes are... dishonest cheaters.