Detailed numbers on the election

[Fransisco]

Charlie, I agree with you that there is a strong economic argument for why farmers should care. But when I look at the vote return rate I can't conclude anything other than most just don't.

[dmlfarmer]

Fran says: (quote) "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 the board to change, or for the government to impose a change when more votes are cast for candidates that want to keep the single desk than votes for candidates running on a platform of change (even though, as Fran points out none of these candidates specified in their platform of the changes they are going to make). Trying to spin the numbers after the election to say farmers may not of voted for change but they want change does not cut it. It is simply propaganda.

[Fransisco]

Again, that is not what I'm saying.

The government of the day has said/promised change to the way the wheat board operates. It has the legal right to do so.

If the argument is that they should not make these changes because farmers overwhelmingly support the status quo then these director elections clearly do not show that to be the case. Neither does the wheat boards own survey's, or the barley plebiscite. The wheat board and its supporters are constantly telling us how popular the board is, how the "majority" loves it. Well the numbers don't back up that claim.

If the conservatives want to make the board voluntary there is little reason to think that the majority of western farmers are against this. A very vocal minority, yes, but not the majority.

Having said all this I still don't think the Conservatives have the onions to keep their promise right now. But if they did I don't think they'd have too much to worry about.

[mustardman]

Franny you should apply for a job at Fox 'News' you and Oreilly,Hannity and Beck could really Spin the news to entertain and Misinform the crowd.

[Fransisco]

And I'm sure the CBC would love to have your insightful analysis as well.

[cityguy]

In the every vote counts category: 16 votes swing from Vos to Guathier in zone 1 and it's 5-0 single desk.

If only we knew how many CWB acres/total acres were attached to each vote? That would create quite a debate.

[TOM4CWB]

Folks,

I think you missed the real point of this election:

This CWB election was NOT about the 'single desk'!

Only the Government of Canada can change the 'single desk'; not the CWB directors.

This is all a red herring meant to distract growers in the 'designated area'. IF the CWB does not prepare for the end of the 'single desk'... it will be taken away by the WTO anyway. The rest of the world will not put up with CWB market distorting tactics.

[bucket]

Tom

You are right, its the federal government that has to change the cwb.

What I looked for in candidates is someone who was more interested in making money for farmers than protecting the single desk.

There is no doubt there is a way to make the single desk work to make more money for farmers, but it won't come from people like Wells or Kornychuk.

Wells' interests are well taken care of already. He is there to ensure nothing changes for the worse as far as organics are concerned.

His record for changing anything in the farming industry is nothing more a figure head because nothing has changed with his work at the NFu.

Anyway, if the right people get elected and perform a major overhaul at the cwb there is a good chance it would get more support. The board could fire half the staff and cut some of its benefits and still be effective.

[TOM4CWB]

bUCKET;

wHAT HAVE WE MISSED THEN;

hOW DID THESE GUYS GET ELECTED?

Who in their right mind, WHY did grain growers; elect directors that are working AGAINST the profitability of commercial grain growers in the 'designated area'... and the long term viability/ best interests of the CWB itself?

This is totally illogical. WHY did it happen???

[jdepape]

I wonder what would happen if the CWB's mandate had to be renewed every couple of years in order to keep it.

In most places, to establish a mandatory marketing agency, it would take a super majority - as much as 67% of a vote and over 50% of eligible voters voting.

Using Fran's numbers, the CWB gets to keep going with only 25% of eligible farmers voting in favour of it (if you assume a split among candidates on the single desk issue and that the election was a plebiscite on the single desk).

Why is "continuing" a marketing agency so much easier than "establishing" one?

If you're going to have a system that forces people - against their will (and better judgment) - into a non-economic activity (the CWB pulls down all commodity values), it seems to make sense that there damn well better be a true majority wanting to do it.

Even then it's not fair. But at least the single desk crowd would have to continually prove they are the majority.

This way, farmers who didn't really care one way or the other would show their position by NOT voting.

You want it - you'd have to make sure you vote for it.

Are single desk supporters confident enough in their support of the single desk that they would accept this approach?