Talk:Australian federal election, 2007/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

AEC final results

Please note: Commencing from Tuesday 18 December, following the completion of each State/Territory Senate count, the full distribution of preferences will be available in a PDF and downloadable format.[1] - does this mean that the full final declared tallies for all seats and counts will be uploaded tomorrow? Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They finally got around to counting my Senate vote last Thursday. So yeah, quite likely - the very last postal votes would have arrived last Friday, but they'd be the stragglers and not high in number. Note Kim Wilkie may be challenging the Swan result as well in the Court of Disputed Returns based on possible illegal campaigning in the Labor suburb of Rivervale, which swung exceptionally highly to the Liberal Party[2][3] [4] The result if proven would not be a reversal of the result, but rather an "invalid" declaration resulting in a by-election. Although it's not usual for the losing party in a contest to win on by-election, it did happen in Mundingburra in Queensland state election in 1995, which in some ways is a highly comparable example by circumstances. Orderinchaos 06:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently inconsistent about whether Labor will win 83 or 84 seats. I assume it's 84 if they win the disputed seat of McEwen, 83 otherwise. Correct? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. McEwen's been re-declared for the Libs with 12 votes but I understand the whole mess is going to the Court of Disputed Returns. Orderinchaos 04:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems the recount went the opposite way you predicted OiC :P Timeshift (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
McEwen hasn't been declared yet!! Guy0307 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point Guy - the vtr site hasn't yet updated. I was going off the news.com.au story someone posted earlier. Re count: with that margin it could go in any direction, especially depending on scrutineers, I think it's heading straight for a byelection anyway. Orderinchaos 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Update - now confirmed News Ltd jumped the gun. ABC says final result for McEwen tomorrow. [5] Orderinchaos 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comm Lib Party - People's Party?

Or even Australian Liberal Party? Anyone with much knowledge care to comment here, it would be welcome. Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Senate result table incorrect

The vote numbers are way off, Greens are stated as having outpolled the Liberals, and Nationals have just 20,000 votes. Moneybags McGee (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The numbers aren't off - that's just the way they're presented by the Electoral Commission[6], and we have to use their figures. In three states (VIC, QLD, NSW), Liberals and Nationals ran under joint tickets, so that's shown as "Liberal/National (Joint Ticket)" at 30.55% (this represents 39.65% in those three states, compared to Labor's 41.24%). The Liberals ran on their own in the ACT and the three remaining states (WA, SA, TAS) which is 8.77% (representing 40.21% in those areas, to Labor's 36.74%). The Nationals are not in coalition with the Liberals in either WA or SA at state or federal level, so their vote in those states is counted separately. The CLP in the Northern Territory got 0.32% (40.03% in the NT). The total coalition vote therefore is 39.64%, down 5.21% on the last election, while Labor's is 40.30%, up 5.28% on the last election. Orderinchaos 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well I understand how it's presented now, but would it be a problem to add the combined vote of the Lib/Nat/CLP Coalition? That could make it easier to understand the results by looking at the table. Moneybags McGee (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes - it would be WP:OR, especially as the Nat vote represented there is explicitly outside the coalition, and the Libs in ACT and Tasmania do not have a National counterpart. Had the AEC treated it differently we'd be able to as well. The problem's created by the parties effectively by doing things like running joint tickets and being in coalition in some states and not in others. Orderinchaos 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The table is perfectly clear if you read the reference next to the joint ticket. But we didn't do that, did we? Timeshift (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not OR to sum figures for a pre-existing combination. Whilst the Coalition may not be as joined together in WA or SA, presumably all Liberal, National and CLP candidates stood committed to working in the existing combination in Canberra? That table is also not consistent with the figures on Australian federal election, 2004 - I presume that time there wasn't a joint Coalition ticket in of the states. Having a Coalition total attached to each table would be useful for readers. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is not OR to sum figures, and that all the candidates were standing as part of an existing Coalition even where they were not on joint tickets. Having a Coalition total would be valid, but I don't think the fact that it isn't there is a major concern. As for the comparison with 2004, are you referring to the swing figures (I can't see a problem with anything else)? I assume the AEC have calculated the swings by combining the separate Lib and Nat votes in Queensland in 2004 with the joint ticket votes in NSW and Vic. I don't know how they'd manage it the other way round, but in any case, they are the AEC's figures, so it is fair enough to present them. JPD (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Nationals in WA specifically campaigned on being an independent rural party with no ties to the Liberals - it's one of the key factors in the near-doubling of their vote here (pretty much a unique situation in Australia), and a significant percentage of the new Nationals voters in Division of O'Connor preferenced the Labor Party in Reps. This is all quite sourceable both from newspaper columns in those areas, and from the Nationals WA website. SA is a little more complicated. As for the swing figures, it would appear that is what they have done, and I'm not sure how they'd manage the reverse either (that's something we'll find out in 2010, I guess :P) Orderinchaos 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As it see it, that sort of campaigning is a reason for presenting the separate figures, but not a reason against giving a Coalition figure - while the Nats may emphasise the fact that they are a separate party, they are quite clearly acting in coalition in Canberra. As for 2010, ar you saying that there is reason to believe the joint ticket in Qld won't be repeated? JPD (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to peculiarities within the WA branch, not the party overall. It's got a lot to do with history and if I ever get around to writing the article on them you can all read about it :) Suffice it to say they weren't even on talking terms with their own leader, Mark Vaile, for the last two years of the Howard government, and there has been serious talk of separation were the federal party ever to attempt to impose "coalitionist" views on the WA party. As for Queensland I'd say with the newfound enthusiasm of Barnaby Joyce and his regarding himself as somewhat of a Senate independent doing deals with Nick Xenophon[7] now that he doesn't have to vote against government legislation any more (which he still managed to do on 19 occasions if The Age is to be believed - anyone got a list?), I'd imagine the Nats would perceive that having "Barnaby Joyce" in the top box on the Senate paper would be an attractive option to many of their own constituency. Orderinchaos 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean re the WA branch. Still, the hypothetical WA Nat elected to Canberra would have been under current arrangements part of the federal party, andhence part of the Coalition, wouldn't they? JPD (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely sure - they claim otherwise. They specifically told voters who asked that they would not take direction from the Nationals' whip in parliament. Orderinchaos 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did mean the way the swing showed the Lib/Nat joint ticket as being down in 2007 despite the total % being higher than that for 2004. Maybe it's worth expanding the note to explain the discrepency so the whole series of election results can give clear comparison? Also is there anywhere on Wikipedia with the individual Senate results for each state? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted table, there is no reason to put the Liberals higher. The Liberal-only ticket that ran everywhere but Vic, NSW and Qld got less votes than the Greens did Australia-wide. Thus the table is like it is - most to least votes. The joint ticket, above the Greens and below Labor, is clearly referenced to explain. One simpleton does not mean this isn't working. Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't placing the Liberals "higher", I was placing the two main coalition results together, seeing as that is the way I think most people would want to see it. That seemed to make a lot of sense, and didn't require any OR to implement as a solution. It still reads Labor, Liberal, Green in that order to have it that way, it's just that the Liberals hog two boxes. Orderinchaos 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
One could argue if you move the Libs up there, the Nats have just as much right to that as well. And that would look silly. There is no issue in ordering the list by number of votes received per ticket from highest to lowest. Something I might do which may help is remove the joint ticket ref, move it and expand it in to the coalition page, and wikilink Liberal/National (Joint Ticket) to that section of the coalition page. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
One solution might be if you could put the three of them in the same/linked boxes, as we do when members change parties in electorate articles. Rebecca (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It is far more reabable to group Libs, Nats and Lib-Nat-joint-ticket in adjacent rows, or perhaps even a multi-row entry. Placing Greens above Liberal on the table is insane. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) p.s. I refer you to the ABC pages [8], [9] and [10] which group the Coalition parties in adjacent rows or columns. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What is insane about placing Australia-wide Greens above Non-eastern states Liberal? They got more votes. The solution here is simply to do what was done on the 2004 page. And to wait for results to be finalised and uploaded to the same ref used for all previous elections. Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Because (a) it makes the table less readable, by splitting two different portions of the Liberal vote; and (b) (less importantly, though more important than number of votes) they got less seats. Grouping them makes clear they are all part of a Coalition vote. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The Nats are already all the way down. They are one half of the coalition. Why no arguments until now? Or are the Liberals more important? For this reason I think that it does not make the table less readable than previously. But I don't see anyone saying they can't figure out who won what, except one claiming the Liberal vote hadn't been updated. Hopefully the UWA results will fix the issue up when they are released in the coming days per previous elections. Or we can put the second, expanded table in, like on the 2004 page. Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There's also the CLP whhich everyone keeps forgetting. Orderinchaos 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. This is just the way the joint ticket and cookie crumbled. Some need to suck it up and accept that one ticket gained more votes than the other, and no tables are in order of seats, only votes. If UWA has it different then so be it, or again the 2004 solution. Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Why should we be guided by the UWA? The ABC groups the Coalition, and I would argue that makes more sense. (And yes, I think the CLP needs to be grouped with the Coalition also). 00:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Ballard (talk • contribs)
Why should we go by the ABC? Or the AEC? (which we would favour over the ABC) Neither are consistent, but wikipedia for all elections goes by vote order not seat or coalition order (except for the table lower down the 2004 page, aka the 2004 solution). Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We go with the AEC's data, but the ordering is in fact up to us. Orderinchaos 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree - the election at the end of the day was between the Coalition and Labor, which is the main contest which selects the seats, and as the Nats didn't win any seats in non-joint-ticket states, it could be argued they won all of them as coalition seats. As such it makes more sense to have the coalition all in one place, perhaps like someone said as a multi row column. Orderinchaos 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the 2004 solution? You can't fit a table of what you're referring to on the page without overlapping the PM table on some screens, not to mention breaking the standardisation since 1901. The tables should be left as is, but the 2004 solution implemented (a fully expanded and detailed multi row columned table). Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What's been done in the past should never be an impediment to finding a better solution - if necessary we can change the older ones. That seems reasonable to me personally (the 2004 solution). Orderinchaos 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I also note that nobody has complained about the position of the Nats in the House of Reps. The tables should be left as is, but the 2004 solution implemented (a fully expanded and detailed multi row columned table). Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should the House of Reps be the same as the Senate? The issue is quite a different one there, as you don't have Lib/Nats, Libs and Nats as three separate entities scattered randomly across the table for people to try and figure out. If it was just Libs and Nats in the Senate we could use that solution here too, but that is not the case. Orderinchaos 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Try and figure out? Is the reference not clear enough? Does it need expansion? Does the ref need removing and instead link joint ticket to the coalition wiki page, with a new section explaining the joint ticket and how this works with the coalition? And it is more or less the same point - all election results are ordered by votes on that ticket, not the seats. Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have forgotten we're both from that tiny minority "political junkie" class. We're writing for them, not for us. Orderinchaos 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What am I forgetting exactly? We aren't writing for retards. Labor has 32 seats won next to it, Greens have 5, Liberal have 32, etc etc, of a total of 76. It's a table. Not rocket science. Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Coalition should be grouped (adjacent rows, or possibly a multi-row entry) in all cases (i.e. both houses, all elections), for the sake of readability. As for why I haven't complained before... well I've often found the WP election tables confusing, it just didn't occur to me to complain/change it until now. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
And you can't do that without expanding the table too big and overlapping with the leaders table to the right. Why don't you agree with the 2004 solution? Btw, see Australian federal election, 1940 and Australian federal election, 1943 *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not bothered about this issue either way, but Timeshift, can you please cool down? You've been unusually aggressive with people over the last week or so, and it's creating angry disputes where there reallly shouldn't be any. Rebecca (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have? Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Not just here, but in a few places over the last few days. I don't know what's going on, but you might want to try and chill out a bit. Rebecca (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than take pot shots at me why not take it to my talk page for rational discussion? Timeshift (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hon, I'm not trying to take potshots at you, but this is the sort of thing I mean. I'm just asking if you could try and cool it a bit, that's all. Rebecca (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Senate table changes

I've decided to "be bold" and put some changes into the Senate table - grouping the coalition, and adding a "changes" column. I think it's an improvement. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a good argument for grouping the coalition parties (or at least the two that operated joint and split tickets) for the sake of readability. The argument that the old version is good enough (which it is) is not a reason not to change it. However, I think Timeshift might have a point that it would be difficult to consistently apply the logic used here to all past elections, where the situation was sometimes even more complicated. Either way, grouping them together doesn't mean we have to ditch the Nat and CLP colours! JPD (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Orderinchaos 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am particularly interested in fixing the special problem of how to represent the joint Lib/Nat tickets in the tables. Where Lib + Nat are always distinct (as they are in the house of reps) then having them non-adjacent is not a problem. I think it should be possible to do something sensible + consistent in all Senate elections where Lib + Nat had joint tickets, as far back as that goes. I don't think there's that problem (joint tickets) to deal with in old elections like 1940 + 1943. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it comes back to if people are likely to be confused (for example, if I was a European trying to learn about Australian politics - a position I often adopt because I have been known to learn about their politics on Wikipedia - and saw the table, I might be led to conclude the Liberals are a minor party in the Senate, or even a split from a "Liberal/Nationals" party/coalition) then we need to do something to have them separate. I personally believe joint tickets are a bit anti-democratic anyway, but that's just me. Orderinchaos 03:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no joint ticket issues, I moved CLP back to where they had been. On another Senate table subject, I think "Pauline's UAP" should be removed from the Senate table. In general, I think a party shouldn't be on the table if they have zero seats both before and after the election. The fact that they got more votes than the CLP doesn't warrant them being on the table - a few other minor parties managed that too. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue it's worthy of being on the thing solely because of the amount of news it generated. One odd thing - I note it says no swing, but she did actually run in 2004 and got a similar share of the vote, so that should probably be fixed up, with a note. Orderinchaos 04:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We should make a "Coalition Total" row with the joint ticket votes + lib votes + nat votes (5,014,842). Guy0307 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of doing shared rows for votes, percentages + swing like this:
Senate (STV GV) — Turnout 95.18% (CV) — Informal 2.55%
  Party Votes % Swing Seats Won Seats Held Change
  Liberal Party of Australia 5,014,842 (footnote here) 39.62 -3 ?? 15 32 -1
  National Party of Australia 2 4 -1
... the only problem is, we can't just rip the swing numbers off the AEC site, but we have to work them out ourselves. I think the pictured table above is even clearer, but what we've got is probably good enough; the empty boxes in the Lib-Nat-joint-ticket line make it obvious what is going on, I think. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As the swings are add-together rather than proportion this isn't much of a problem. It'd be more a case of add the four together (L/N, L, N, CLP), add them together for 2004, add the AEC-displayed swings together and then check to make sure there is no error. I don't see why this would fall foul of WP:OR. Once we get it in a way it works here, we should probably implement the same solution at 2004 for consistency. Orderinchaos 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually the swings don't add, but there's a simple way anyway: work out the 2004 total percentage, and do a simple subtraction. But before I or anyone else goes editing a whole pile of election articles, I'm curious what format people think is best. p.s. I'm leaning to leaving CLP out, and only combining Lib/Nat because we don't have any choice. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, reflecting on this - it does add. Let's say Party A swings 3% from 36% to 33%, Party B swings 2% from 15% to 13%, Party C swings 1% from 3% to 2%. The total swing assuming Party A-C are a coalition will be 6%, as 36+15+3 (54) swings by 3+2+1 (6) to go to 33+13+2 (48). The only problem for us, then, is rounding errors caused by the AEC outputting 2dp percentages. Orderinchaos 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If only it was that simple. But the AEC is doing some funky adjustment to the joint ticket figures, because they ran a joint ticket in Qld this time but not in 2004. So the joint ticket vote in 2004 was 25.72%, this time it was 30.68%, yet the AEC gives it a swing of -3.55%. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
We talked about this earlier - what the AEC is is fairly straightforward, and definitely doesn't affect the fact that swings add (the Lib and Nat swings are "wrong" in the same way, balancing it out). In fact, adding the coalition figures together would completely remove this anomaly. It just doesn't reflect the reality about how the parties operated and received votes. JPD (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't do that, either. It's not really a good idea to include the SA and WA branches of the Nationals in any national Coalition figure, because not only are they very much not in coalition at state level, but it's far from clear that they would have sat with the Coalition at federal level. I strongly suspect this was why Labor only decided to really run dead in one seat in the country - O'Connor in WA, where the Nats where in with a decent chance against Wilson Tuckey. IIRC, there was quite a bit of suggestion that Nats candidate Gardiner would not sit with the federal Nationals if elected. Rebecca (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed (see my comments re this earlier also). Besides it makes almost no difference to the result - the swing and nearly all of the votes are either Libs or joint ticket. Orderinchaos 11:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So is that agreement to stay with what I've done but go no further? i.e. (a) move any mention of seats from the joint tickets column, (b) put joint, Lib and Nat in adjacent rows for clarity; and (c) leave CNP separate), ...
Senate (STV GV) — Turnout 95.18% (CV) — Informal 2.55%
  Party Votes % Swing Seats Won Seats Held Change
  Liberal/National (Joint Ticket) 3,883,479 30.68 –3.55      
  Liberal Party of Australia 1,110,366 8.77 –1.63 15 32 -1
  National Party of Australia 20,997 0.17 +0.06 2 4 -1
... i.e. this? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is how to fit it in the main table. It would be good if they could all go in some sort of linked box, rather than three seperate boxes, to a) make clear that they're linked, and b) clarify why they're appearing out of vote order. Rebecca (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that pretty well my earlier suggestion (above) with all Lib/Nat votes lumped together in a single dual-row entry? There's still the lower house table to indicate that the Lib vote is overwhelmingly the lion's share. Yes it is a simplification, but whatever we do is a simplification. (Unless we break down the votes state by state, but I think that is way too complex a table to go in the lead). Peter Ballard (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No. You can't sort the data into completely original ways that don't particular pertain to reality. I'm just suggesting to put that information, exactly as above, but formatted properly as part of the existing table, rather than randomly placing these three rows out of vote order. Rebecca (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
About that, btw... the deputy FA coordinator suggested recently that we shouldn't really have tables in the lead at all. We will ultimately need to move them into the article, and think of what is needed to improve our infobox to convey the required information (minimally). Orderinchaos 07:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The unpopular infobox used at New South Wales general election, 2007 does a fairly good job of displaying the most important information, and could be combined with the leaders' pics. Having said that, distinguishing between a table in the lead and an infobox seems quite fussy. If it really is a problem, the tables could be moved into the results section without significantly changing access to the information.
As for the ordering issue within the tables, I still don't see why the solution here should be different to 1940/1943. As for Rebecca's linked box, we should be able to remove the borders in particular cells, shouldn't we? JPD (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about that infobox today :) The ideal way would be to NPOV it (that was really the only reason it was unpopular if I recall), implement the consensus re major party leaders on it then use it consistently on all articles - at present we have three different looks/feels on election articles around Australia. I might toss around some ideas in my userspace and see what I can generate. As for the solution here - we're really just trying to find the best way to do things here after a long discussion then have the option of implementing it on earlier articles. Orderinchaos 14:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Separate reply re lead table - we're getting same feedback from both GA and FA people, which would present major problems in getting any of these articles past GA/FA in future. I've seen a screenshot of what someone with accessibility issues sees and the table mangles with the infobox where it is presently and some of the text is obscured. Orderinchaos 14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope you all had a Merry Christmas. Answering JPD, the 1940 and 1943 tables, with their joint UAP/Country Party tickets, are also deficient and need to be fixed. For instance, at Australian federal election, 1940, there is no way to tell how many seats were won by the UAP and how many were won by the Country Party. Answering Rebecca, I don't think it is "sort(ing) the data into completely original ways" to group the Lib + Nat vote together, when in half the states they're lumped together anyway. And the summary table is just that - a summary, and should present the information in as readable a way as possible. Having said that, I'd accept either of my suggested tables above (though I prefer the first one, i.e. the one without any "joint ticket" row). But I am strongly opposed to giving seats to the "joint ticket" row, because it is confusing, even misleading.
And I agree that the tables should be moved out of the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It's blatant original research, and bad original research at that. You cannot merge figures for states where the parties are not in coalition and would have quite likely not sat together in Canberra if they'd elected MPs. This is why you need the above table: it provides the accurate data in a way that makes sense. Rebecca (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But the above table gives, at least by implication, 2 seats (+ 4 in total) to the 20,000 National votes in SA/WA. At least when they're lumped together, it's clear that their seats mostly come from a joint ticket vote. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I know it looks bad, I'm thinking of a way to improve it.

Senate (STV GV) — Turnout 95.18% (CV) — Informal 2.55%
  Party Votes % Swing Seats Won Seats Held Change
  Liberal/National (Joint Ticket) 3,883,479 30.68 –3.55      
  Liberal Party of Australia 1,110,366 8.77 –1.63 15 32 -1
  National Party of Australia 20,997 0.17 +0.06 2 4 -1
  Coalition Total 5,014,842 39.62  ?      
If there'sa summed total for the Coalition then surely it should also include the CLP figure? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I might add it tomorrow - or feel free to add it yourself. Guy0307 (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all these cries out for coalition groupings, yet nobody is willing to add the Country Libs in to the coalition grouping in the Senate. Perhaps it might be due to the CLP ticket gaining more votes but less seats than the National ticket? Which would make the table even more confusing than it has become? Well, so much for the merits of the senate coalition grouping argument when nobody has carried it out. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I was just waiting for discussion from someone other than myself. As for the CLP, it is easy to keep separate because there are no joint ticket issues, so it's probably best kept separate. Another possibility is to summarise the Senate table (akin to the 2-row summary for the House of Reps) with just 3 rows: "Labor", "Coalition" and "Other". Yet another possibility is to group the Coalition (including the CLP) in the main table, but then have a more detailed table below, perhaps that one including state-by-state voting. Lots of possibilities... Peter Ballard (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First Rudd Ministry image

Is there any fair use rationale that will get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firstruddministry.jpg over the line to stop deletionists? Timeshift (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It isn't like it's a replaceable image - it's not like any random citizen can ring up each member of the ministry and say "hey, would you folks mind coming down to Canberra so we can take a photo for Wikipedia?". While it's possible to do that individually, as a group, I think we have a strong case that it's not a replaceable fair use image, and thus acceptable for use here. Rebecca (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I will have a go at tightening the raionale. (It will probably help to remove the irrelevant stuff such as the noncommercial permissions.) However, while I agree that this is not replaceable, we need to be careful about where it is used. For First Rudd Ministry, it is clearly significant to the topic, and we can say we can't organise a free group photo. For Cabinet of Australia, any past cabinet photo would be almost equally appropriate (in fact, the previosu (Howard) pic might be better, as this one includes more than the cabinet), and so we need to argue that we cant' get a free photo of past cabinets either (probably true, but this needs to be said in the rationale). For Prime Minister of Australia, I think we have trouble arguing that this particular photo adds enough significance to the article. JPD (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Note also that noone has seriously tried to delete this - it was automatically tagged as having an invalid fair use rationale, because a simple but vital ingredient (the name of the article(s) the rationale is for) was omitted. A fair use rationale that doesn't tell us which use it is talking about is meaningless. JPD (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Macquarie

Although the redistribution made it notionally a Labor seat pre-election, it was in fact held by Kerry Bartlett (Liberal). He lost it to Bob Debus (Labor). The Seats changing hands table makes no mention of it. Without at least a note, it appears that Macquarie was not one of the seats that changed hands from one party to another, when it was. Orderinchaos mentioned this at Talk:Australian legislative election, 2007/Archive4#Seats changing hands (see final post) but nothing seems to have happened.

Btw, the link in the archive box there points to a non-existent page. No idea how to fix it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Two replies to two questions:

Re archive box - will fix that - the problem is (for everyone else's benefit) that the original name of the page was Australian legislative election, 2007, and the archives have not been moved to the new name.
Re Macquarie - what do others think? The problem actually affects two seats:
  • Macquarie was redistributed and became a notionally Labor seat (having been a fairly safe Liberal one previously), with the safe Liberal territory moving to Greenway. The seat was won by a Labor member against its Liberal incumbent. Therefore it changed hands but as the swing says ALP -> ALP, it's not in our table.
  • Parramatta was redistributed and became a notionally Liberal seat (having been a marginal Labor one, held by Liberals for several terms prior to 2004). It was won by its incumbent Labor member on a swing. According to our table, it changed hands, although it had the same member/affiliation before and after.
The problem here is these are technicalities but the man on the street would say 1 changed hands and 2 didn't. We need a way to note this that is consistent and does not involve OR. Orderinchaos 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two different notions of changing hands, one of which (looking at who actually held the seat) is practical when talking about how the parliament changed, and the other (comparing post-redistribution with post-election) which is more informative in terms of swings achieved. Basing the table consistently on either is reasonable, as long as the seats which look different from the other point of view are mentioned in accompanying text. (I don't think a footnote is enough - this is quite important information, and could have been even more significant - it definitely isn't set in stone that redistribution changes cancel each other out the way they did this time.) OiC has expressed a preference for the post-redistribution notion, which is fine except for the extra factor of the margins displayed in the table. They are (generally) un-redistributed margins from 2004, which to me at least suggests that the table is talking about changes since 2004, not the redistribution. JPD (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement that both should be in the section, but one will be in the table and the other as a note. I think it's safer to follow the AEC on the former and our judgment on the latter. You're right re distributions too - at least one of my politics textbooks claims the 1998 result was based on boundaries which locked the Labor vote in Labor areas and so favoured the Liberal party in marginal seats. The author demonstrated this by working out the statewide 2pps necessary to win power over various elections. Subsequent redistributions - most notably in SA but also elsewhere - have rectified this to some extent. Orderinchaos 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Do you mean the ABC? I don't think the AEC has such a table. Following the ABC is fair enough, especially since I am taking back my comment about the margins. Both the ABC and our table are using the post-redistribution margins. (I was confused by Parramatta which was 0.8% on way before the redistribution and 0.8% the other way afterwards.) The ABC table was intended mainly for live election watching, and since our article is more historical, we might have reason to take the other approach, but I'm not bothered about it. JPD (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... the fact that the table refers to members does lend itself to the non-ABC approach - I am trying to fit Parramatta in, but it is awkward however I do it. JPD (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Sorry, got confused re AEC - I was thinking of these tables which list the previous Labor margin, they don't have a section with seats changing hands. Orderinchaos 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

2PP figure is not final

First Preferences by Party - Vic - Turnout: 95.16%, Turnout: 92.62%, Notes: These results are final. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And we have the answer. Spoke to the AEC, it stumped them, I had a call back from an official who thanked me for advising them of the issue, the person who does the calculations found the division of Melbourne to go maverick a day before he went on leave, and thus Melbourne is currently not included in the figures, thus there is no complete and final tally for the lower house in Victoria, and the 2PP is not yet complete either. As Melbourne went maverick (Labor vs Green), the 2PP should be updated in the next day or so by the person who does the calculations. As it is one of the top 5 safest in the country for Labor, that would explain why the 2PP dropped half a percent or so all of a sudden a while back. So the two party preferred figure is not yet out! Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated and fixed. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

2pp estimates to 1940

Per this and this, it mentions Mackerras has now done estimates to 1940 in a table to the right, but I can't see the table the article refers to? The 1943 2pp was already known from a prior ref, and one of the articles mentions the 1943 swing so from that I've now got the 1940 and 1943 2pp figures... but having much trouble finding the 1946 2pp or swing... can anyone suggest something? Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That table will be in the Australian article itself. Can anyone get a scan of it and email it to Timeshift? (I'll have a look later today if I get into the city, but I don't have a scanner so there's no guarantees.) Orderinchaos 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a scan, I simply need to know what 1946 was, or the swing, and which page of today's paper it's on for the ref. From that all the figures are known per above. Thanks to the person who reveals it! Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Leader images

Going way back to the leader images discussion, I've trialled a crop for Howard's image. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And what does it have to do here? Guy0307 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the discussion took place here as here is where the images were being used. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the image of the winner, in this case Prime Minister Rudd, should be placed above the loser, in this case former Prime Minister Howard. I think that makes sense. - Violet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.154.184 (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't Prime Minister at the election. He was Prime Minister after the election. See 1996 and 1983 elections as examples. Timeshift (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading - Senate Results

"Labor and the coalition won 18 seats each in the Senate. The Greens won three seats, with independent Nick Xenophon being elected on primary votes alone. This brings the 76-member Senate total to 37 coalition, 32 Labor, 5 Green, 1 Family First, and 1 independent. This means that when the new Senate meets after 1 July 2008, the balance of power will be shared between Xenophon, Family First's Steve Fielding and the five Greens."

Some might not pick up that these (last two sentences) are only projections, not results. I have changed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.185.67 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your standard federal election only elects half of the senate. A members term is two terms, or six years. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding last edit summary, UWA not UOW, and ignore the \\'s. Not fully with it today. Timeshift (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent colours

The political parties have colours encoded using different methods in different places. In some places, such as the House results, the seats are coloured using HTML tags. In the seats changing hands, they use templates. For consistency, the templates should be used throughout. (For example, the CLP have different colours in different places.) -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 08:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re CLP, done. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard's loss of own seat

I included this information in the intro since it seems a highly salient fact about the election - Bruce's similar loss is in the intro of Australian federal election, 1929. At a minimum, it deserves more attention than in the current version, where it's buried in a general para listing all sorts of results. JQ (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All the information in the 1929 article is in the lead. The 2007 had many aspects, all discussed in the article. I see no need to note Howard's loss in the intro. Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
a sub-heading under "House Results" or "Seats changing hands" might be appropriate, given the coverage it got. I don't think it belongs in the lead however - it didn't get THAT much coverage. IMHO Peter Ballard (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Upper house results

I've added senator tables for the various states at State-by-state upper house results, if some are able to have a quick look to make sure I've remembered the modifications to add such as Fisher replacing Vanstone, McGauren changing parties etc etc, that would be great. Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Added Mathias Cormann, who replaced Ian Campbell in June 2007. User:Jmount (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta! Timeshift (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pyne defines Liberal policies as "hard right"

Noting the current contributors to the discussion, I thought i'd mention that there is a debate at Talk:Liberal Party of Australia over Pyne and "hard right". Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruth Russell

Is Ruth Russell, human shield in Iraq in 2003, noteable enough to be added as a "high profile candidate" in candidates and seats? Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Polling booth images

I'm adding a collection to the end of week 6, if anyone has any, please upload! Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)