results

[parsley]

You sound like a little old lady in 1929 who was informed she could not vote because she was not legally designated as a person.

So, she decided to try harder to sway the way her husband voted, because that was a much more comfortable way to work within the existing political system.

She gave up trying to get a vote, feeling "it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where 'male-voting-only' fails".

She instead resorted to having a good bawl every four or so years when only all-men were elected as MP's.

feel it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where the CWB fails

Uh huh.

Parsley

[parsley]

You sound like a little old lady in 1929 who was informed she could not vote because she was not legally designated as a person.

So, she decided to try harder to sway the way her husband voted, because that was a much more comfortable way to work within the existing political system.

She gave up trying to get a vote, feeling "it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where 'male-voting-only' fails".

She instead resorted to having a good bawl every four or so years when only all-men were elected as MP's.

feel it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where the CWB fails

Uh huh.

Parsley

[SASKFARMER3]

Dwayne Anderson Looses No surprise the guy did a Flaman run on changing the system then once you get your first check you just do the same as before.
In our area it was clear early on that people were pissed at the man not what he stands for. Farmers are sick and tired of empty promises and Dwayne was a casualty of that.
I also agree that a large number of people are voting on gut response to some of the things the conservatives are doing on this matter. But also lots didn't vote because the CWB needs to show us how it works for us not just tell us it works.

[northfarmer]

Henry Vos is a successful farmer snd businessman.....he is also open to change.....his on farm epxerience, his direct involvement in leadership roles in the industry(WCE, ACPC, seed industry)will serve us well...

... our farming operation voted for him and it is gratifying that Macklin no longer speaks for the farmers of my region.....

There is no question where Macklin stood on the issues of the day at the CWB and his defeat should send a clear message that change and freedom for farmer to chhose how thay market their grain are what is needed.....

[wedino]

Vader >>60 per cent of the popular vote went to the single desk side - pretty strong endorsement<<

Quebec requires a 67% majority to impose a compulsory marketing board.

[AdamSmith]

wedino,

In Quebec is it 67% of those voting or is 67% of all eligable farmers?

[wedino]

I'll go out on a limb & say 67% of eligible producers. Here's what I read: For example in Quebec, the support of two-thirds of farmers is required to impose a compulsory marketing board.

Also of interest, in Manitoba, it's required to obtain a 60% majority to impose a VOLUNTARY producer checkoff.

[Vader]

wedino, I accept that a 2/3 majority is a legitimate threshold before making very significant changes.

Perhaps the anti-board side needs to have that degree of support to dismantle the CWB.

I you maintain that the CWB supporters need to have the 2/3 majority for the continuation of the single desk then that is the question that needs to be put to the people. Although the candidates do have as part of their election platform either a single desk or an "choice" position that is not the only criteria that people base their choices on.

Let us change the question from "who" do you want on the board of the CWB to "do you want the CWB to continue to have exclusive marketing authority over wheat and barley". In that scenario, I have no doubt that the support level would easily surpass the 2/3 majority.

Let's ask the question "who wants the CWB to become a run of the mill domestic, underfunded, understaffed grain broker with no facilities". Support for the continuation of the CWB in its current form might go as high as 75%.

[wedino]

The cwb paid for a survey in May of this year, you're all ready aware of this survey, aren't you Vader?.
In that survey, farmers were asked: “If you had to choose between
three different approaches to marketing barley, which of the following would you prefer.” In that survey 29.0% of
respondents supported the existing CWB monopoly, 45.7% wanted marketing choice, 18.7% wanted no CWB
marketing of barley at all and 6.6% didn’t know or did not respond.

Vader, due you agree that my final payments are smaller due to the cwb conducting this survey?

[wedino]

29.0% of
respondents supported the existing CWB monopoly,

See a trend here, Vader? 30% of eligible voters support single desk directors.

[just_wondering]

Vader
I would suport your argument on 67% to dismantle the CWB of its single desk if youy can show me the farmer voter turnout in the plebicite to create the CWB 70 years ago. The only vote that was held pre 1998 was to include Canola and that was lost by the Single desk supporters.
I would still have a hard time going along with the single desk if a fair question was aked of REAL farmers voting on production delivered but if it passed I would likely go along with it?(maybe)
But at best I'll give you 35% of anyone who delivers one tonne of grain to the CWB ,or will sign a stat decloration. On a one member one vote system.
The CWB is NOT a CO-OP, in my credit union board training #3 on requirements for a CO-OP is being voluntary the CWB is an act of parliment.

[peaqueen]

You know the more I look at this debate the more I question why a majority can decide what to do with the minority.

What about minority rights, or do we have to wear turbans to qualify for a debate on minority rights.