The Results
Most of you already have looked at the results last night and this morning. While this post includes them, this post is more about your happiness with the results. So, we present the following poll:

Now on to the results:
0 of 52 Voting Stations Reporting as Partial or Incomplete.
52 of 52 Voting Stations Reporting as Final.
38.23% Voter Turnout
Mayor
For the Office of Mayor | Preliminary Results | Percentage |
BOUCHER, Normand | 7366 | 44.81% |
FRIESEN, Julie | 6923 | 42.11% |
COWAN, Scott | 2151 | 13.08% |
Alderman
For the Office of Alderman |
Preliminary Results |
CRAVEN, Wayne | 10715 |
CLUGSTON, Ted | 10161 |
KELLY, Graham | 9267 |
DUMANOWSKI, Robert C. | 9067 |
HAMILL, John | 8013 |
THOMPSON, Jeremy O. | 7651 |
TURNBULL, Phil | 7393 |
PEARSON, Les | 6931 |
VARGA, Brian | 6742 |
WEBB, George | 4782 |
ZIEGLER, Wayne | 4561 |
KRAUS, Pat | 3798 |
Public School Board Trustee
For the Office of Public School Board Trustee |
Preliminary Results |
WILSON, Roy | 5158 |
FORBES, Deborah | 5085 |
MASSINI, Rick | 4767 |
RILEY, Terry | 3792 |
BENDER, Greg | 3550 |
LITOUSKY, Lilas | 2323 |
BEATON, Mike | 2152 |
KUMM, Renaé | 1719 |
Separate (Catholic) School Board Trustee
For the Office of Separate (Catholic) School Board Trustee |
Preliminary Results |
ABERLE, Stan | 3091 |
CHURLA, Jodi | 2364 |
MASTEL, Richard (Dick) | 1974 |
GRAD, Peter | 1728 |
DURDA, Dianne | 1696 |
DURST, Regina | 1194 |
Bow Island Ward Separate (Catholic) School Board Trustee
For the Office of Bow Island Ward Separate (Catholic) School Board Trustee |
Official Results |
VAN HAM, Kelly | Acclaimed |
Results provided by The City of Medicine Hat.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Vaughn says:
Looks like a lot of Medicine Hat Media readers so far aren’t too happy with the results…
October 19th, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Brian says:
I’m wondering how many of the people voting on this poll actually voted last night.
October 19th, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Sean says:
I overheard a story today whereby some women were saying “It’s about time a woman gets in as Mayor.” It seems their only motivation for voting for Frisen was because she was a woman, not because of her stances, speeches, or anything of consequence.
October 19th, 2010 at 7:28 PM
aehiilrs says:
Because we all know one anecdote is hard data.
This reminds me of a question I had – if you are admittedly poorly informed, is it better to vote or to not vote?
October 19th, 2010 at 7:29 PM
aehiilrs says:
Whoops, sorry Sean, I misread your comment.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Dusty says:
Any comments I’ve heard anyone mention about Friesen involved the fact that she is a woman.
I voted in the poll and IRL also. If you’re poorly informed then you definitely should not vote, a big problem is that only a few of the candidates are on the internet. Without going to a conference I found it really hard to become informed, the reason so little people vote is because it takes too much time. Then OH LOOK the Med Hat site couldn’t tell people where to vote either.
In my fantasy world, there’s a website where every candidate has a profile and a little write up, the site would link to printed articles or videos, and that you’d be able to vote online. That last part is a bit of a far stretch but whatever, it’s my vision.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Dusty says:
Found in a News article:
“Both Chapman and Godin add that the disappointing numbers raise the question of whether it is time for web-based voting to be introduced.
“It seems like now, if you don’t make it so that people can do it from the leisure of their own homes, they aren’t going to do it,” she says.”
Welp.
October 20th, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Vaughn says:
Dusty/Sean, I think you are taking generalization to an extreme. Surely, you talked with the 6923 people that voted for Julie, personally.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Dusty says:
Not in any way, I very specifically said “any comments I’ve heard” which could be the News filtering comments or whatever.
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:09 PM
aehiilrs says:
Comments on any news web site — local, provincial, national, or worldwide — are the new lowest form of discourse.