Detailed numbers on the election

[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!

[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?