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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I believe this is the first time that the governing party (Labor, or Lib/Nat) has had to rely on two parties and an independent to secure the passage of legislation. Noteable? The other query is the articles that make mention of the noteability that the balance of power is held by a Senator (Fielding) elected in 2004 on less than 2% of the vote. To quote one article I was reading, Paul Keating's 'unrepresentative swill' is something of an understatement at the moment. [1] [2] [3] Timeshift ( talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
First point isn't particuarly notable... the second isn't at all notable. 58.178.7.240 ( talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Can a line graph of the opinion polling please be included? IMO, it would be a lot clearer than the table. Lawrence, M.J. ( talk) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where all the ACNielsens and Galaxys can be found so User:JPD can create the new graphs, like the ones used at Australian federal election, 2007? Timeshift ( talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to spell out why the senate election cannot be held until August. The reasoning behind the rest of the dates is there. I'm guessing the reasoning is the practical considerations around campaigning nomination of candidates etc. Same thing would be good explaining the latest the election could be held would probably be the last Saturday of May, again due to practical considerations. Thoughts? qwertytam ( talk) 09:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Qwertytam
This edit said that it was "pointless" to mention that Troeth's term would not end till 30 June 2011. I kind of dispute that. It is the case that she will not cease to be a senator on election day, as defeated MPs will, but will carry on till the end of her term. Isn't this relevant information to have there? -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Commentator David Barnett from the Canberra Times (incorrectly) predicted in early 2008 that the election would be called in two years' time rather than three, and will be based upon a comparison of the Rudd government's record with that of the Howard government.
The next New South Wales state election is due on 26 March 2011[11] and this may make a 2011 federal election undesirable.
Newspoll due tomorrow but Nielsen beat them, and considering events I thought others may want to see the just-released Nielsen poll. [4] Timeshift ( talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Timeshift said in a recent edit summary: "(→Polling: it's actually lib when referring to 2pp as nat prefs can go to labor and land on the labor 2pp)"
Is there any proof that Newspoll distributes National party preferences? I always assumed they just added the Lib and Nat votes and then distributed the minor party preferences.
The Newspoll website uses Labor v Coalition. I think we ought to use that. Digestible ( talk) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Given it looks like the election will almost certainly be held in 2010 (Centrebet is quoting odds of 6.5 to 1 that it will be held after October - let alone next year) I propose renaming this article "2010 Australian Federal election". As I recall this is the same approach we took in 2007. In the extremely unlikely event that a 2010 election becomes less likely we could easily change back to "Next" or even "2011". 124.187.133.235 ( talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Farmer was defeated for Macarthur preselection, has consistently ruled out running as an independent and is openly considering a run at the state seat of Camden. It is agreed by everyone, including Farmer, that he will not contest the next election. Surely something of this counts as announcement of retirement? Frickeg ( talk) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit needs some discussion, I think.
An MP can only truly be said to have retired when they fail to renominate by the deadline, which is always after the parliament is dissolved. Normally, we don’t need to wait for that point, but are guided by their earlier public statements to the effect that they have chosen to retire.
Neal and Farmer, to my knowledge, have made no such statements. They have lost preselection, that’s all. It will probably mean they’re going to retire; but not necessarily. The section is introduced “Members who have indicated their intention to retire are ..” - but Neal and Farmer have not so indicated. Not yet, anyway. If we want to mention people who’ve lost preselection and are currently mulling over their political futures, we can do that separately.
If I'm wrong and either has said they have in fact decided their federal parliamentary career is over, we should cite that statement. But citing the loss of preselection does not do the job. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This is really simple. The people of Robertson elected Belinda Neal. They did not elect Labor. Labor has chosen not to endorse Neal as their official candidate at the next election. Neal has not said she will resign. Therefore it's completely plausible she could contest the election as an independent. Until she has said she will not contest the next election, she should not be on this page. Timeshift ( talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Leave as is. It explicitly states that she lost preselection. For members who lose preselection, retirement is the rule and an independent run is the exception. It's pedantic in the extreme to insist that Belinda Neal is still a potential candidate. Her preselection is widely expected to mark the end of her current tenure in parliament and until she indicates otherwise that's what should be displayed. Digestible ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone think that adding a debates section with respected commentators comments to this article would be beneficial? Wikistar ( Place order here) 07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Move this page to Australian federal election, 2011 (already exists) as the PM has already affirmed that elections would be held this year (although this contrary to CNN/Bloomberg that said 10 months)
Regarding the move to Australian federal election 2010: just because the Prime Minister emphatically stated on The 7.30 Report that the election would be held in 2010, that doesn't mean it will. This is still crystal balling. Barrylb ( talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
ACT and NT Senators should be listed here too. They face re-election at every election. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the paragraph describing media speculation about the election date. It's pointless, and DOES conflict with Wikipedia's no speculation rule. The media has to sell content every day. Sometimes it isn't even really news. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to sell anything. Nor should it be speculating. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm disengaging. I've requested assistance here, i'll wait for others to remove speculation of the media date. It's always been the standard that we do not add media speculation no matter how real it seems unless the people who count have said it. It's a pity this and WP:CONSENSUS seems lost on you, not to mention how hypocritical you now appear based on events at the Gillard page. Timeshift ( talk) 06:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
They are part of the opposition, aren't they? Tony (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else noticed that the article and the talk page are at different names? (The article's at "2010" and the talkpage at "Next".) Could an admin fix this please? Frickeg ( talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether someone is already working on updating the now out-of-date "Date" section, but here is a source for the writ dropping on the evening of 19 July for anyone who chooses so to do. I would do it, but it is (past) bedtime on my side of the world. - Rrius ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've also removed the map at right from the article. As it doesn't include the capital city seats it gives a misleading impression of both the number of seats at stake and who holds them. Maps of Australian federal electoral divisions normally expand the capital cities to ensure that all the seats are shown. Nick-D ( talk) 08:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
There are many things wrong with it. Here are some:
It's bad. Tony (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know when the House of Reps is going to be prorogued/dissolved? Or why there's no media release about the election and related details from the PM yet? Or why the PM's own website is still saying it's Kevin Rudd in charge? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that you are 100% correct Canley - that is what APH has advised us here at work CanberraBulldog ( talk) 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, new to this webpage, not sure of the history or the past for this page but is it possible to add in the Greens and the Primary Vote? I noticed in a few polls that the Greens are at 13-14% and that the Coalition are at 42% and Labor is at 38% Also, Timeshift, are you also rude in the real life all the time! I didn't know that this page only uses Newspoll, like others here, could you not have just explained it nicely instead of trying to act so superior?!?! CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all again, just had a re-think about my question/comment - I guess the Info box doesn't need what I asked as the Polling Section sums it up very well, so I guess we can delete my questions/comment. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to delete my comment so for an expert wikipedian to delete this comment would be great. Cheers, sorry for being a pest! CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick comment again to all - I saw the Newspoll today and there first poll shown was Primary Vote - I thought it may be a could one to add in the main info box for people that are new or learning about politics - just a thought. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems pretty much a Gillard hate page at the moment. Timeshift ( talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The main page "2010 Election" is documenting data/statistics. The "2010 Election Campaign" page is documenting politics/history. Both are valid for posterity.
- The Campaign page needs a consistent formatting style though. Cablehorn ( talk) 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
←Weight/balance WRT the Australian Green Party: it has been widely acknowledged in the media that the Greens are almost certain to hold the balance of power in the new Senate (from 1 July 2011). This makes them a highly significant force in the election, whether through their preference deals with the ALP in both houses, or their impending balance of power in the Senate. Tony (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And at this point folks
Orderinchaos found reason to block me from editing.
Cablehorn (
talk)
00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
←WP:CRYSTAL nothing. The point is that there is no doubt expressed in the media. Crystal applies to WP editors who might be forecasting, not to our reportage of forecasts in the media. Tony (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to all editors of the campaign page. It looks good. As someone with no love of either major party, I can see no bias in the page. It is interesting that the editing style has been debated here at length without the word chronicle being used. Wikipedia was intended as a live chronicle. Yes?
With growing interest in the integrity and accountability (and capability) of politicians, I believe the politicians' conduct during the campaign is more important than the outcome. Therefore, the page is worthwhile; a "blow-by-blow account" is not worthless. Didactik ( talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we really be including only polling from Newspoll? It seems we might be giving undue prominence to a single organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.245.254 ( talk • contribs)
Getting back to the original question, alternatives to just using Newspoll include the ABC's poll of the polls which averages the various polls (though it only seems to go back to June 7) and the aggregated pollytrend at Pollytics.com which uses some rather sophisticated maths to combine the polls. That said, there's nothing wrong with just using Newspoll - whatever you think of the way The Australian interprets its results, the poll itself is professionally administered and well regarded, and gets similar results to all the other properly conducted opinion polls. The fact that it's conducted fortnightly throughout the electoral cycle is also a big plus - the AC Nielsen and Galaxy polls are concentrated around elections. Nick-D ( talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I can commit to that, if I'm late on anything feel free to prod me about it. I'll try to put together the 2PP by the end of the night. -- Lear's Fool 12:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
as per electoral articles across wikipedia a background to the election is encyclpaedic, and the info int he removal was cited with such parallels drawn, it this not WP:OR and also linked directly to the election. Lihaas ( talk) 04:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This just scared me half to death - the noise was incredible.
Australia’s Federation Guard (AFG) will conduct a 19-Gun Salute to acknowledge the proroguing of Parliament. During the activity artillery guns will fire 19 rounds using blank cartridges. The cartridges do not contain any projectiles; however they do contain gunpowder to simulate the sound of firing. The rounds will be fired at five-second intervals commencing from 5:00 pm. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 07:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, I've put together charts for the two-party-preferred polls with Newspoll, Neilson and Roy Morgan here and the primary polls with Newspoll here. At this point, I would like to add lines on the graph indicating where leaders have changed etc. and perhaps add in the Neilson polling for the primary vote as well. I haven't included Galaxy because I can't find a convenient source that has all the results tabulated. I thought I should get the ball rolling on how we want to include these (should they replace the current tables?) and whether they need any more changes (like some averaged trendlines or something.). -- Lear's Fool 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Extended content
|
---|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. |
I'm not crazy about it, personally, I'm not really sure what benificial comparison it would bring. The polls taken before the election were between Howard and Rudd, and then we have the election, and then there's a three month break before there's any more polls, and then it's between Rudd and Nelson, so I'm not really sure how they would relate. Shouldn't it simply be one graph for the one term? -- Lear's Fool 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I though each territory had two senators. Why are both listed for retirement? At the moment, 40 senators are listed as retiring in a 76-member chamber. Tony (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Tony, you seem to be equating the probability that both major parties will have one senator each from each territory, with the fact that their terms start and end at different times than the state senators. I can't see that that has anything to do with it. It's the fact that there are only 2 senators, as compared with 12 from the states, that forces this outcome. The mathematics of the proportional preferential system make it virtually a certainty that, no matter which major party's No. 1 candidate wins the first vcacancy, the second vacancy will be won by the other party's No. 1 candidate. And this would be the case no matter when their terms start and end. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Should the infobox be modified to be post-redistribution in the number of seats held, and seat and % swing required? Timeshift ( talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've amended accordingly. Timeshift ( talk) 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The number of seats held is shown on the Parliament House website here: http://aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf This is the only appropriate source of information regarding the "number of seats held" by each party. According to this source the number of seats held are as follows: Labor: 83 Coalition: 55 + 9 = 64 Independent: 3 Total: 150
I have updated the article as appropriate. -- Rational1991 ( talk) 11:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Post redistribution numbers are by no means exact, they are vague estimates by private individuals from observations of voting behaviour on a booth by booth basis. I personally do not feel the use of these estimates in the infobox is appropriate, it would be appropriate if the AEC published the data. As a result, I feel that the infobox can only legitimately display the results of elections (ie. the last general election and by elections), this essentially means the composition of the parliament at dissolution.
-- Rational1991 ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a triple adjective. Is it Canley or Fool's Lear? Could you please ensure that the hyphen is in the title of the graph next time you update it? The title could be in a larger font-size, too. Tony (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Both go back quite a way, but indicate wrongly that Gillard and Abbott are the subjects throughout. This is wrong. Tony (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Who can't see that the leadership poll results from previous leaders are wider caused by that extra number next to each and every result to indicate a footnote? It is how it's always been done and nobody's ever taken an issue until now... another Tonyism? Feel free to propose suggestions for improvement... but don't act the way you're acting over it. On a wider issue... people spend years here doing good work, it's incredible how much ozpol articles have grown and matured, but then you come along and start criticising everything and tearing everything down, why? Just a thought. Timeshift ( talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
How about you both cool it? This really isn't helping. The point of this section is supposed to be about discussing the poll tables. I have to say that I think the current format is fine - it is made clear that there is something different about the pre-Gillard/Abbott ratings. However, they haven't really been adapted for the smaller format, which I'll try to do now (still showing footnotes for Howard and Nelson when there are no such ratings, etc.). Frickeg ( talk) 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Date | Labor Gillard |
Liberal Abbott |
---|---|---|
16–18 Jul 2010 | 57% | 27% |
25–27 Jun 2010 | 53% | 29% |
Rudd | Abbott | |
14–16 May 2010 | 49% | 33% |
30 Apr – 2 May 2010 | 50% | 32% |
Rudd | Turnbull | |
16–18 Apr 2010 | 56% | 29% |
26–28 Mar 2010 | 59% | 27% |
Polling conducted by
Newspoll and published in
The Australian. ^Remainder were "uncommitted" to either leader. |
-- Canley ( talk) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the tables at Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2010 are missing the leader change rows. Timeshift ( talk) 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Page visits for this article this month. It's a high-profile page. Settling down to more than 2000 hits a day, which is sure to increase. Good PR for WP. Tony (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors are reminded of the difference, which is misused in the main text of all articles on previous federal elections I've looked at.
←The SMH and apparently at least the Victorian EC—and very possibly other ECs—would say "three-point swing", or perhaps in the first occurrence in a piece, "three-percentage-point swing". It's not rocket-science, and it's unambiguous and mathematically correct. I've seen instances this morning of "percentage" that are plain wrong, mathematically. Tony (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And in response to Canley's previous entry: "Across the arc of an electoral pendulum I could still say that was a swing of 40%". Yep, and it would be wrong to use "40 points", because the original numbers, rather than percentages or proportions, are being compared. This is where the confusion arises, but it's easy. When talking of a change in percentage, you need to use "percentage point", or plain "point". Most usage in these electoral articles is explicitly in terms of changing percentages.
"The swing just happens to correspond to the difference between the percentage votes." Difference or swing or lead or gap, it's the same, because the difference between two percentage values is at issue; if you render that difference in terms of "percentage", readers will not know whether the difference is with respect to the whole 100% (that's usually what is intended) or the first of the two percentage values (that's the default reference, I'm afraid, and not usually intended by writers).
"... just because the SMH and VEC use those terms does not mean plain "percentage swing" is wrong". The problem is still there, becuase either value (swing-from or swing-to) is always either mentioned or implied. Tony (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Antony Green has given his two cents on this topic on his election Q&A—his answer: either is correct (which is what I was saying).
-- Canley ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Referring back to the issue we discussed here: I now feel completely vindicated. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 ( talk) 06:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Lear's Fool for posting these valuable updates. I'm sorry to be the complainer again, but ... well ... that's what I do. I hope this is taken in a positive frame.
In the meantime, I've added lead sentences for each graph. The basic principle, I believe, should be that readers shouldn't have to double-click on a graph (and then click on a further expansion at Commons) to see the basics. Tony (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
←The British had a a graph of the running average of four pollsters, I think. Surely it's not OR. Thanks for taking the trouble to do these graphs: it's really useful. Tony (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to make all your lives difficult - it seems Newspoll will no longer be publishing an individual Liberal and National vote. Timeshift ( talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting in early here, in what will probably turn out to be a forlorn hope. But I have to ask.
Can we please not report that Julia or Tony is the "winner" of the debate, unless we define what we mean, or anyone means, by that term? The media regularly obsesses about winners of political debates, but they never explain that, beyond whatever the worm does. Does it mean that everyone is now going to vote for the "winner"'s party come election day? Certainly not. Or that enough people will vote that way to give that party victory? Well, maybe, but how can we tell for sure, a month out from the election? I can't imagine what else it might mean. After all, one of the purposes of these debates is to have an opportunity to put your side's case, and to do so as persuasively as possible. If you succeed in persuading enough people to vote for your side, then of course you're a winner, but that can only be judged on election day. Another purpose, I suppose, is to engender community debate about particular issues, and in that sense, there are no winners or losers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
←Here, what the media "say" can be reported; preferably with their reasons. Tony (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack, I don't think it's up to us to analyse how the audience came to their vote, it just did what it did, just like any vote. It doesn't need a yardstick. Timeshift ( talk) 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I had to post a word of encouragement at the talk page of a newish user whose head had been bitten off by Timeshift9 for replacing an image at an article related to this one. I thought the edit-summary of Timeshift's revert was a little aggressive, too. The user had just returned after 15 months, and has not edited much since arriving a few years ago. S/he has asked why the image can't be included elsewhere on the page; it's worth considering.
Timeshift removed my polite note about biting off E.3's head from his/her talk page four minutes after I posted it, with an offensive edit-summary ("sometimes i just wish i could block particular people from posting to me...). This aggressive behaviour really needs to stop. It's going to end up as a civility complaint at AN/I before long. The civility code makes it quite clear what should not be said, whether on a talk page or an edit-summary.
I ask all users to welcome others into this topic area. Wikipedia is now short of good editors and can ill afford to turn off entrants. Tony (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this is a little contentious, and can I suggest that reverting and discussing through edit summaries is probably less preferable than discussing it here. To get the discussion going, I agree with the version Timeshift and Rebecca are protecting: I do not feel it is appropriate for there to be an external link to the election coverage for every media outlet, but I do feel that the ABC, both in it's capacity as the national broadcaster and as a particularly good source for factual (rather than op-ed) coverage of the election makes it's inclusion appropriate. -- Lear's Fool 09:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, I think I stuffed up the info box, sorry - I should leave it to you wiser heads than me the novice.
Also, are we going to put the ABC and others back in the External links? I'd like to see some external info on the election in. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the lead reads:
Since the use of the group voting ticket is optional (but voting isn't), is there a way we can improve this without confusing things? Removing "group voting tickets" will still make it true, but less descriptive, but keeping it is slightly misleading (even if almost everyone votes above the line). But I understand how the Senate is a little difficult to summarise into a sentence. Perhaps "single transferable vote with the option of following a group voting ticket" if it isn't too long? StuartH ( talk) 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Gillard had the option of calling a double-dissolution election, but didn't? (one wonders why she didn't, actually). -- Surturz ( talk) 06:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Bad timing I know. Looks like Murray (Sharman Stone) will be abolished... Timeshift ( talk) 06:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Following the close of the electoral roll, the AEC has released information here on the number of voters enrolled to vote by total, and by age range, per state. Is that information that should be included on this page? Jherschel ( talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to update the new Nielsen and Morgan numbers later this afternoon, but I was just wondering what support there would be for me generating another set of graphs that only capture the last few months, given the higher polling frequency during this time. It could be done in the vein of this graph from the UK election this year, and may also include labels showing when major events occured (eg the debate, party launches, monumental stuff-ups etc), although I am aware that we need to be care of suggesting our own conclusions ( WP:SYN as Timeshift would say). -- Lear's Fool 04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Graph update required. Neilsen 53-47 to Labor, Gillard approval up, Abbott approval down. Timeshift ( talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems only logical that if we are going to have a multi-company 2PP graph that we include all five players, not just a random three... Timeshift ( talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
!!! Where is an appropriate place for this? It is undoubtedly noteworthy. Timeshift ( talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
TimeShift, with your heading you should work for labor! I think it is pretty important, as the ruling being of 'upheld', this will mean extra votes for Labor and the Green. Here is the ABC's take on the judgement http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/06/2975602.htm?section=justin. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Labor's finally having its campaign "launch" on Monday 16 August [6]. Is it just me, or is it completely ridiculous to give a speech 5 days before an election, 30 days into a 35-day official campaign, and call it a "launch"? What are they launching at this late juncture? Even the Libs "launch" was way too late to be called that. These really stretch the meaning of the language, and insult people's intelligence into the bargain. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this and/or this a good addition to the page? Betting odds have historically shown to be an excellent predictor of election outcomes. Labor's odds continue to shorten. I also notice the rather short odds on Family First winning a seat... Timeshift ( talk) 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this page/Wikipedia's role would be enhanced with links to pages that documents developments and responses to the various policies being proposed and defended in this election? Leighblackall ( talk) 01:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Combining Gillard (ladies first) and Abbott in various ways, we get:
Sorry, I'm in a frivolous mood. Delete if you feel so inclined. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
22,000 voters in 54 marginal seats and 6,000 in safe seats, massive. For Labor, NSW: Lindsay, Bennelong, Macarthur and Robertson lost, retain Eden-Monaro and Dobell, win Paterson and Cowper. QLD: Brisbane, Bonner, Petrie, Leichhardt, Forde, Dawson, Flynn and Dickson lost. VIC: Corangamite lost, McEwen, La Trobe and Dunkley won. SA: Boothby won. WA: Hasluck and Swan lost. Total: 79 Labor, 68 coalition, 3 independent. Labor marginals 2PP 49.2%, national 2PP 51.6%.
"The super-sample poll published by Fairfax, covering 22,000 voters in 54 seats (about 400 each), turns out to have been conducted not by Nielsen, but an outfit called JWS Research whose automated phone polling on the weekend were widely noted at the time. The Sydney Morning Herald sells its managing director John Scales as “a renowned pollster” who was director of Morgan from 1992 to 1995, and research director at Crosby Textor (Liberal Party strategy firm) from 2002 until earlier this year."
Comments appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 06:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
And just to explain it rather simply, this poll gave a 51.6% 2PP to the ALP. Most polls are around 52% ALP 2PP. But if some seats are swinging up to 10%, basic maths says there has to be an opposite swing somewhere else. This poll completely fits with what we're observing. Timeshift ( talk) 10:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OOH! Now we have a seat-by-seat breakdown!!! See here. I can't believe they're giving Labor 57% in McEwen and Dunkley, and 54% in Cowper and Boothby! Bring on Saturday! Timeshift ( talk) 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Pictures for the Party Leaders are pretty bad(Julia's head/face is larger than Abbot's that seems a little biased and appears to be shown clearer and in more detail - which indicates bias). Can we get better ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.187.118 ( talk) 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there, all the newspapers in their endorsments of the major parties refer to both 'Labor' and 'The Coalition' rater than Liberal. Would it be much trouble to create a party colour (The same colour as the LNP, as it is undoutably a merged Coalition) to show both the Liberal and National Parties in there endorsed position as they are clearly endorsing the ' The Coalition'. Романов ( talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The newspaper endorsements are wrong. According to yesterday's Australian, the SMH didn't endorse anyone, and the Sunday Herald Sun endorsed Labor, there may be more errors too, those are the only ones I can recall. 131.236.167.107 ( talk) 05:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
...is very obscure. I don't want a revert war, but really, it's rubbish. How about spelling out the meaning in other words? HiLo48 ( talk)
Relative majority. See Plurality (voting). It's not clear the ALP has "won" since it looks like it will be a hung parliament meaning who forms government depends on who the Independent and Green MPs support. Dramedy Tonight ( talk) 11:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48, stop your vandalism, you already started the revert war. About that word you don´t know about, as explained above and it is linked in the article. This all showcases Wikipedia failures. -- Thomaskh ( talk) 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not accept your "advice" because it wasn´t me who added the links. haha That´s just laughable. -- Thomaskh ( talk) 11:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, plurality is a North American polisci term. British/Australian English uses "relative majority". In any case, saying "she won" was very premature. Dramedy Tonight ( talk) 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
...Especially since she lost. She's received fewer seats than Abbot, and considering what she did to Rudd, she's got NO credebility in negotiations. Ericl ( talk) 00:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Who won the 2PP? Labor :) A minority of Australians voted for the coalition :) Timeshift ( talk) 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You're all being very childish, kiddies. And now getting way off topic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Any chance we can ease up on the competition to be first to post the speculative news? Why the rush? HiLo48 ( talk) 11:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, be the first to know.....^^-- Thomaskh ( talk) 11:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is anybody able to fathom whether or not the WA Nationals should or shouldn't be included in Coalition totals? Most of the national results are including them automatically without comment but some of the specific stories are stating that Crook will sit with the Nationals but not with the Coalition. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Why are there polls of the satisfaction of the individual party leaders on this page but no clear polling of the satisfaction of the parties other than that graph. Also, the polls of the satisfaction of the leaders is set out very strangely. Why is the dissatisfaction only shown for the liberal party - i know you can figure out the satisfaction by subtracting it from 100, but why not show the satisfaction of the liberal leaders rather than showing the dissatisfaction? And then what are these random last two columns on the right that just say "satisfied" "dissatisfied" without showing who it is referring to.. perhaps I'm an idiot and missing something here but this part of the table is hard for me to understand, and i'm not generally an idiot, so i suggest that it is changed, and i also suggest that it shows the satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction for liberal leaders. Javsav ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Date | Labor Gillard |
Liberal Abbott |
---|---|---|
17–19 Aug 2010 | 50% | 37% |
13–15 Aug 2010 | 50% | 35% |
6–8 Aug 2010 | 49% | 34% |
30 Jul – 1 Aug 2010 | 50% | 35% |
23–25 Jul 2010 | 50% | 34% |
16–18 Jul 2010 | 57% | 27% |
25–27 Jun 2010 | 53% | 29% |
Rudd | Abbott | |
18–20 Jun 2010 | 46% | 37% |
28–30 May 2010 | 49% | 33% |
14–16 May 2010 | 49% | 33% |
30 Apr – 2 May 2010 | 50% | 32% |
16–18 Apr 2010 | 56% | 29% |
26–28 Mar 2010 | 59% | 27% |
12–14 Mar 2010 | 55% | 30% |
26–28 Feb 2010 | 55% | 30% |
12–14 Feb 2010 | 55% | 27% |
29–31 Jan 2010 | 58% | 26% |
15–17 Jan 2010 | 57% | 25% |
4–6 Dec 2009 | 60% | 23% |
Rudd | Turnbull | |
27–29 Nov 2009 | 65% | 14% |
13–15 Nov 2009 | 63% | 22% |
30 Oct – 1 Nov 2009 | 63% | 19% |
16–18 Oct 2009 | 65% | 19% |
28 Sep – 1 Oct 2009 | 67% | 18% |
Polling conducted by
Newspoll and published in
The Australian. ^Remainder were "uncommitted". |
Date | Satisfied Gillard |
Dissatisfied Abbot |
Satisfied | Dissatisfied |
---|---|---|---|---|
17–19 Aug 2010 | 44% | 43% | 42% | 50% |
13–15 Aug 2010 | 44% | 38% | 43% | 46% |
6–8 Aug 2010 | 43% | 41% | 41% | 49% |
30 Jul – 1 Aug 2010 | 42% | 40% | 44% | 46% |
23–25 Jul 2010 | 41% | 37% | 40% | 46% |
16–18 Jul 2010 | 48% | 29% | 36% | 51% |
25–27 Jun 2010 | N/A (new) | N/A (new) | 42% | 41% |
Rudd | Abbott | |||
18–20 Jun 2010 | 36% | 55% | 38% | 49% |
28–30 May 2010 | 36% | 54% | 37% | 49% |
14–16 May 2010 | 39% | 51% | 42% | 45% |
30 Apr – 2 May 2010 | 39% | 50% | 45% | 43% |
16–18 Apr 2010 | 50% | 41% | 46% | 40% |
26–28 Mar 2010 | 51% | 39% | 44% | 43% |
12–14 Mar 2010 | 48% | 41% | 47% | 38% |
26–28 Feb 2010 | 51% | 40% | 48% | 38% |
12–14 Feb 2010 | 50% | 40% | 44% | 37% |
29–31 Jan 2010 | 50% | 38% | 41% | 39% |
15–17 Jan 2010 | 52% | 34% | 40% | 35% |
4–6 Dec 2009 | 58% | 32% | N/A (new) | N/A (new) |
Rudd | Turnbull | |||
27–29 Nov 2009 | 56% | 34% | 36% | 50% |
13–15 Nov 2009 | 56% | 34% | 34% | 50% |
30 Oct – 1 Nov 2009 | 59% | 32% | 32% | 51% |
16–18 Oct 2009 | 63% | 28% | 32% | 54% |
28 Sep – 1 Oct 2009 | 67% | 21% | 33% | 48% |
Polling conducted by
Newspoll and published in
The Australian. ^Remainder were "uncommitted". |
Was Internet censorship in Australia a significant issue in this election, and will the loss interfere with plans for a China-style censorship of Net traffic? Wnt ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is using both Template:Australian Labor Party/meta/color and Template:Australian politics/party colours/Labor but the shades of red are different. Can someone skilled with colour templates either get the two onto the same colour or ensure the article only uses one of these? Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
How much should we talk about the potential leanings of independents? Apart from the two Greens/ex-Greens, there's three independents, all former Nationals who hated the party and left. Now we're getting indications that Katter has been insulted by them, and we're hearing about how they are really wanting the NBN. Should commentary on these issues be added? Timeshift ( talk) 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ta da! Timeshift ( talk) 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Overall Change
Party, New, Total
Liberal/National Party, 18, 34
Australian Labor Party, 15, 31
Australian Greens, 6, 9
Others , 1, 2
VIC
Candidate, Party
1 Kim John CARR, Australian Labor Party
2 Michael RONALDSON, Liberal Party
3 Richard DI NATALE, Australian Greens
4 Stephen Michael CONROY, Australian Labor Party
5 Bridget McKENZIE, The Nationals
6 John MADIGAN, DLP - Democratic Labor Party
NSW
Candidate, Party
1 Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS, Liberal Party
2 John FAULKNER, Australian Labor Party
3 William HEFFERNAN, Liberal Party
4 Matthew THISTLETHWAITE, Australian Labor Party
5 Fiona NASH, The Nationals
6 Lee RHIANNON, Australian Greens
QLD
Candidate, Party
1 George Henry BRANDIS, Liberal National
2 Joe LUDWIG, Australian Labor Party
3 Barnaby JOYCE, Liberal National
4 Jan McLUCAS, Australian Labor Party
5 Larissa WATERS, Australian Greens
6 Brett MASON, Liberal National
WA
Candidate, Party
1 Mathias CORMANN, Liberal Party
2 Chris EVANS, Australian Labor Party
3 Chris BACK, Liberal Party
4 Glenn STERLE, Australian Labor Party
5 Judith ADAMS, Liberal Party
6 Rachel SIEWERT, Australian Greens
SA
Candidate, Party
1 Alex GALLACHER, Australian Labor Party
2 Mary Jo FISHER, Liberal Party
3 Anne McEWEN, Australian Labor Party
4 Sean EDWARDS, Liberal Party
5 Penny WRIGHT, Australian Greens
6 David FAWCETT, Liberal Party
TAS
Candidate, Party
1 Helen POLLEY, Australian Labor Party
2 Eric ABETZ, Liberal Party
3 Christine MILNE, Australian Greens
4 Anne URQUHART, Australian Labor Party
5 Stephen Shane PARRY, Liberal Party
6 Lisa SINGH, Australian Labor Party
NT
Candidate, Party
1 Nigel SCULLION, Country Liberal Party
2 Trish CROSSIN, Australian Labor Party
ACT
Candidate, Party
1 Kate Alexandra LUNDY, Australian Labor Party
2 Gary HUMPHRIES, Liberal Party
Source:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/senate-results.htm
note: I also live in Australia (although it doesn't really matter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloryify ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Gloryify ( talk) 04:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (DOH!, forgot to sign my name the first time)
Can someone please explain "hung parliament"? Unless it's an exact tie, then how is there not a majority party? 75.221.177.161 ( talk) 07:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Can this table be numbered so that the number of moving seats does not have to be counted manually? Tabletop ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where to obtain an election map of Australian constituencies (preferably svg)? I could not find one the website of the Australian Electoral Commission. -- Furfur ( talk) 23:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.248.187 ( talk)
We are told in the article, presumably quite accurately, that "After counting on election night, the Labor Party had received a primary vote of 38.6%. If reflected in the final results, it would be the lowest for a governing party since World War II."
The Coalition primary vote was 34.1%. How does that look historically for an opposition? HiLo48 ( talk) 09:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's quite a silly and moot point really. I wouldn't vote Liberal in a fit, and I voted Green. I support a continued Labor government which I get to indicate through my preferencing. Labor has won the national 2PP vote. So exactly how does a low primary vote have any bearing on governing legitimacy? It's funny how for the first time since federation it's clearly Labor that's getting a clear majority of preferences, and now they kick up a fuss... directed at nobody in particular. Timeshift ( talk) 10:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I've actually gone ahead and removed it like the rest of the News Ltd sensationalist wording in there. The results table is there, readers can make their own conclusions. Timeshift ( talk) 10:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
How should we list them in the results? Unfortunately the tories had to throw the Liberal National Party in to the coalition pie, to add to the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, the Country Liberal Party, not to mention the Liberal/National group voting ticket and the seperate National WA/SA tickets in the Senate. Originally I combined them all as "The Coalition", but it's too slangy. I thought Lib/Nat/LNP/CLP Coalition is more proper, but Pomahob disagrees. I don't think it's an option to seperate them all out. How should it be labelled? Maybe just Liberal/National Coalition which covers every branch's name in some form...? Timeshift ( talk) 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary results
Lower house
'In a total of 150 seats, 76 seats form a majority government. Results are progressively updated using the official Australian Electoral Commission statistics. The following seat numbers are confirmed seats from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:[6][7]'
This above section is very confusing and changing all the time. It states that the table is confirmed by the ABC website, so I update, according to the ABC and the referenced ABC link, then I am told that it should be from the AEC, which one is it???? It is very confusing to have links and reference from ABC and AEC, should we just not use the official AEC and wait for FINAL results to have this table - it's kinda like putting the cart before the horse, is it not? CanberraBulldog ( talk) 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
... I ask that people stick to the process that has always been used. The AEC is used for the votes, while the ABC is used for the seats. Obviously, the AEC should be used for votes as they are the ones who conducted the vote and are in the process of counting and updating the vote. The ABC is and has been used because they tend to spend more time actually crunching the numbers. The percentages are taken from the linked AEC ref in the article, the seats are taken from the win column (confirmed by ABC standards), not the predicted column, taken from the ABC ref in the article. An extra part has been added to the table for seats 'in doubt'. And each bit of this has been spelt out above the results tables in the article! There is nothing at all biased or unfair about this process, and it's the way it's always been. So please stick to this process, and if there is an issue i'm sure it can be sorted out by WP:CONSENSUS, but until then, please, let's keep some logic to this. Thankyou. Timeshift ( talk) 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it strange to use a News source for seats and the Official AEC just for votes, but if that's the way it is then that sounds good. Thanks for explaining it so well and explaining the logic. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 07:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are the results in the article based on official AEC results or ABC results? Or is it AEC results on the votes and other stats but ABC's call on the seats only? The introductory paragraph above the table does not make this entirely clear. It would seem unhelpful to rely on two sources, as different editors are changing the results based on conflicting sources. Can we decide on one source and stick to it — or at least make it abundantly clear what the source is for each type of data and only update the table according to the appropriate source? — sroc ( talk) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
ABC is now saying 4 'others' I assume that means 4 independents - should we update the table or just leave it as is? whoops, it just now changed ALP to 71 - wow the table sure does change! CanberraBulldog ( talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)?
{{
editsemiprotected}}
With a total of 150 seats in the House of Representatives, 76 seats are needed to form a majority government.
Vote counts shown below are progressively updated using the official Australian Electoral Commission statistics. [1] The seat numbers are figures calculated by the Australian Electoral Commission as having been decided. [2] [3]
Party | Votes | % | Swing | Seats | Change | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liberal/National Coalition | 43.5 | +1.4 | 72 | |||
Australian Labor Party | 38.5 | –4.9 | 70 | |||
Australian Greens | 11.4 | +3.6 | 1 | +1 | ||
Independents | 2.6 | +0.4 | 4 | +1 | ||
Other | 4.0 | 0 | 0 | |||
seats 'in doubt' | 3 | |||||
Total | 150 | |||||
Australian Labor Party | 50.63 | –2.07 | 70 | |||
Liberal/National Coalition | 49.37 | +2.07 | 72 |
Results released on the night of the election indicated that a hung parliament was likely, with independents and the Greens holding the balance of power. [4] Both Labor and the Coalition appeared to have fallen short of the 76 seats required for majority government. Accordingly, either side requires the support of crossbenchers to govern. On the crossbench, the Greens won a seat at a general election for the first time with Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne, with all three incumbent independents successfully re-elected, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott. [5] [6] and Andrew Wilkie as additional new independent. [7] In addition, Tony Crook, the member elected as a Western Australian National for the district of O'Connor is not a part of the coalition.
All three old independents were formerly members of the National Party, the minor party of the Coalition; however, they have not yet indicated their support for either party. [8] Wilkie had been a previous member of The Greens. Bandt, The Greens, had previously announced he would align with Labor in the event of a hung parliament. [9] Both major party leaders are seeking to form a minority government. [10] [6] [11]
Seat | Party, pre-2010 | Member, pre-2010 | Margin, pre-2010 % | Swing | Margin, post-2010 % | Likely member, post-2010 | Party, post-2010 | ||
Batman, Vic | Labor | Martin John Ferguson | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Not in doubt, but not declared yet | Labor | ||
Bennelong, NSW | Labor | Maxine McKew | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | John Alexander | Liberal | ||
Bonner, Qld | Labor | Kerry Rea | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Ross Vasta | LNP | ||
Brisbane, Qld | Labor | Arch Bevis | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Teresa Gambaro | Liberal | ||
Corangamite, Vic | Labor | Darren Cheeseman | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | In doubt | |||
Dawson, Qld | Labor | James Bidgood | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | George Christensen | LNP | ||
Denison, Tas | Labor | Duncan Kerr | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Andrew Wilkie | Independent | ||
Dickson, Qld | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Peter Dutton | LNP | ||
Flynn, Qld | Labor | Chris Trevor | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Ken O'Dowd | LNP | ||
Forde, Qld | Labor | Brett Raguse | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Bert Van Manen | LNP | ||
Gilmore, NSW | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Joanna Gash | Liberal | ||
Hasluck, WA | Labor | Sharryn Jackson | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | In doubt | |||
Herbert, Qld | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Ewen Jones | LNP | ||
La Trobe, Vic | Liberal | Jason Wood | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Laura Smyth | Labor | ||
Leichhardt, Qld | Labor | Jim Turnour | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Warren Entsch | LNP | ||
Longman, Qld | Labor | Jon Sullivan | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Wyatt Roy | LNP | ||
Macarthur, NSW | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Russell Matheson | Liberal | ||
Macquarie, NSW | Labor | Bob Debus | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Louise Markus | Liberal | ||
Melbourne, Vic | Labor | Lindsay Tanner | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Adam Bandt | Greens | ||
McEwen, Vic | Liberal | Fran Bailey | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Rob Mitchell | Labor | ||
O'Connor, WA | Liberal | Wilson Tuckey | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Tony Crook | National | ||
Solomon, NT | Labor | Damian Hale | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Natasha Griggs | CLP | ||
Swan, WA | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Steve Irons | Liberal |
84.46.46.34 (
talk)
14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I believe this is the first time that the governing party (Labor, or Lib/Nat) has had to rely on two parties and an independent to secure the passage of legislation. Noteable? The other query is the articles that make mention of the noteability that the balance of power is held by a Senator (Fielding) elected in 2004 on less than 2% of the vote. To quote one article I was reading, Paul Keating's 'unrepresentative swill' is something of an understatement at the moment. [1] [2] [3] Timeshift ( talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
First point isn't particuarly notable... the second isn't at all notable. 58.178.7.240 ( talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Can a line graph of the opinion polling please be included? IMO, it would be a lot clearer than the table. Lawrence, M.J. ( talk) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where all the ACNielsens and Galaxys can be found so User:JPD can create the new graphs, like the ones used at Australian federal election, 2007? Timeshift ( talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to spell out why the senate election cannot be held until August. The reasoning behind the rest of the dates is there. I'm guessing the reasoning is the practical considerations around campaigning nomination of candidates etc. Same thing would be good explaining the latest the election could be held would probably be the last Saturday of May, again due to practical considerations. Thoughts? qwertytam ( talk) 09:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Qwertytam
This edit said that it was "pointless" to mention that Troeth's term would not end till 30 June 2011. I kind of dispute that. It is the case that she will not cease to be a senator on election day, as defeated MPs will, but will carry on till the end of her term. Isn't this relevant information to have there? -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Commentator David Barnett from the Canberra Times (incorrectly) predicted in early 2008 that the election would be called in two years' time rather than three, and will be based upon a comparison of the Rudd government's record with that of the Howard government.
The next New South Wales state election is due on 26 March 2011[11] and this may make a 2011 federal election undesirable.
Newspoll due tomorrow but Nielsen beat them, and considering events I thought others may want to see the just-released Nielsen poll. [4] Timeshift ( talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Timeshift said in a recent edit summary: "(→Polling: it's actually lib when referring to 2pp as nat prefs can go to labor and land on the labor 2pp)"
Is there any proof that Newspoll distributes National party preferences? I always assumed they just added the Lib and Nat votes and then distributed the minor party preferences.
The Newspoll website uses Labor v Coalition. I think we ought to use that. Digestible ( talk) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Given it looks like the election will almost certainly be held in 2010 (Centrebet is quoting odds of 6.5 to 1 that it will be held after October - let alone next year) I propose renaming this article "2010 Australian Federal election". As I recall this is the same approach we took in 2007. In the extremely unlikely event that a 2010 election becomes less likely we could easily change back to "Next" or even "2011". 124.187.133.235 ( talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Farmer was defeated for Macarthur preselection, has consistently ruled out running as an independent and is openly considering a run at the state seat of Camden. It is agreed by everyone, including Farmer, that he will not contest the next election. Surely something of this counts as announcement of retirement? Frickeg ( talk) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit needs some discussion, I think.
An MP can only truly be said to have retired when they fail to renominate by the deadline, which is always after the parliament is dissolved. Normally, we don’t need to wait for that point, but are guided by their earlier public statements to the effect that they have chosen to retire.
Neal and Farmer, to my knowledge, have made no such statements. They have lost preselection, that’s all. It will probably mean they’re going to retire; but not necessarily. The section is introduced “Members who have indicated their intention to retire are ..” - but Neal and Farmer have not so indicated. Not yet, anyway. If we want to mention people who’ve lost preselection and are currently mulling over their political futures, we can do that separately.
If I'm wrong and either has said they have in fact decided their federal parliamentary career is over, we should cite that statement. But citing the loss of preselection does not do the job. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This is really simple. The people of Robertson elected Belinda Neal. They did not elect Labor. Labor has chosen not to endorse Neal as their official candidate at the next election. Neal has not said she will resign. Therefore it's completely plausible she could contest the election as an independent. Until she has said she will not contest the next election, she should not be on this page. Timeshift ( talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Leave as is. It explicitly states that she lost preselection. For members who lose preselection, retirement is the rule and an independent run is the exception. It's pedantic in the extreme to insist that Belinda Neal is still a potential candidate. Her preselection is widely expected to mark the end of her current tenure in parliament and until she indicates otherwise that's what should be displayed. Digestible ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone think that adding a debates section with respected commentators comments to this article would be beneficial? Wikistar ( Place order here) 07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Move this page to Australian federal election, 2011 (already exists) as the PM has already affirmed that elections would be held this year (although this contrary to CNN/Bloomberg that said 10 months)
Regarding the move to Australian federal election 2010: just because the Prime Minister emphatically stated on The 7.30 Report that the election would be held in 2010, that doesn't mean it will. This is still crystal balling. Barrylb ( talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
ACT and NT Senators should be listed here too. They face re-election at every election. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the paragraph describing media speculation about the election date. It's pointless, and DOES conflict with Wikipedia's no speculation rule. The media has to sell content every day. Sometimes it isn't even really news. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to sell anything. Nor should it be speculating. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm disengaging. I've requested assistance here, i'll wait for others to remove speculation of the media date. It's always been the standard that we do not add media speculation no matter how real it seems unless the people who count have said it. It's a pity this and WP:CONSENSUS seems lost on you, not to mention how hypocritical you now appear based on events at the Gillard page. Timeshift ( talk) 06:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
They are part of the opposition, aren't they? Tony (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else noticed that the article and the talk page are at different names? (The article's at "2010" and the talkpage at "Next".) Could an admin fix this please? Frickeg ( talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether someone is already working on updating the now out-of-date "Date" section, but here is a source for the writ dropping on the evening of 19 July for anyone who chooses so to do. I would do it, but it is (past) bedtime on my side of the world. - Rrius ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've also removed the map at right from the article. As it doesn't include the capital city seats it gives a misleading impression of both the number of seats at stake and who holds them. Maps of Australian federal electoral divisions normally expand the capital cities to ensure that all the seats are shown. Nick-D ( talk) 08:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
There are many things wrong with it. Here are some:
It's bad. Tony (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know when the House of Reps is going to be prorogued/dissolved? Or why there's no media release about the election and related details from the PM yet? Or why the PM's own website is still saying it's Kevin Rudd in charge? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that you are 100% correct Canley - that is what APH has advised us here at work CanberraBulldog ( talk) 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, new to this webpage, not sure of the history or the past for this page but is it possible to add in the Greens and the Primary Vote? I noticed in a few polls that the Greens are at 13-14% and that the Coalition are at 42% and Labor is at 38% Also, Timeshift, are you also rude in the real life all the time! I didn't know that this page only uses Newspoll, like others here, could you not have just explained it nicely instead of trying to act so superior?!?! CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all again, just had a re-think about my question/comment - I guess the Info box doesn't need what I asked as the Polling Section sums it up very well, so I guess we can delete my questions/comment. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to delete my comment so for an expert wikipedian to delete this comment would be great. Cheers, sorry for being a pest! CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick comment again to all - I saw the Newspoll today and there first poll shown was Primary Vote - I thought it may be a could one to add in the main info box for people that are new or learning about politics - just a thought. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems pretty much a Gillard hate page at the moment. Timeshift ( talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The main page "2010 Election" is documenting data/statistics. The "2010 Election Campaign" page is documenting politics/history. Both are valid for posterity.
- The Campaign page needs a consistent formatting style though. Cablehorn ( talk) 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
←Weight/balance WRT the Australian Green Party: it has been widely acknowledged in the media that the Greens are almost certain to hold the balance of power in the new Senate (from 1 July 2011). This makes them a highly significant force in the election, whether through their preference deals with the ALP in both houses, or their impending balance of power in the Senate. Tony (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And at this point folks
Orderinchaos found reason to block me from editing.
Cablehorn (
talk)
00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
←WP:CRYSTAL nothing. The point is that there is no doubt expressed in the media. Crystal applies to WP editors who might be forecasting, not to our reportage of forecasts in the media. Tony (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to all editors of the campaign page. It looks good. As someone with no love of either major party, I can see no bias in the page. It is interesting that the editing style has been debated here at length without the word chronicle being used. Wikipedia was intended as a live chronicle. Yes?
With growing interest in the integrity and accountability (and capability) of politicians, I believe the politicians' conduct during the campaign is more important than the outcome. Therefore, the page is worthwhile; a "blow-by-blow account" is not worthless. Didactik ( talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we really be including only polling from Newspoll? It seems we might be giving undue prominence to a single organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.245.254 ( talk • contribs)
Getting back to the original question, alternatives to just using Newspoll include the ABC's poll of the polls which averages the various polls (though it only seems to go back to June 7) and the aggregated pollytrend at Pollytics.com which uses some rather sophisticated maths to combine the polls. That said, there's nothing wrong with just using Newspoll - whatever you think of the way The Australian interprets its results, the poll itself is professionally administered and well regarded, and gets similar results to all the other properly conducted opinion polls. The fact that it's conducted fortnightly throughout the electoral cycle is also a big plus - the AC Nielsen and Galaxy polls are concentrated around elections. Nick-D ( talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I can commit to that, if I'm late on anything feel free to prod me about it. I'll try to put together the 2PP by the end of the night. -- Lear's Fool 12:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
as per electoral articles across wikipedia a background to the election is encyclpaedic, and the info int he removal was cited with such parallels drawn, it this not WP:OR and also linked directly to the election. Lihaas ( talk) 04:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This just scared me half to death - the noise was incredible.
Australia’s Federation Guard (AFG) will conduct a 19-Gun Salute to acknowledge the proroguing of Parliament. During the activity artillery guns will fire 19 rounds using blank cartridges. The cartridges do not contain any projectiles; however they do contain gunpowder to simulate the sound of firing. The rounds will be fired at five-second intervals commencing from 5:00 pm. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 07:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, I've put together charts for the two-party-preferred polls with Newspoll, Neilson and Roy Morgan here and the primary polls with Newspoll here. At this point, I would like to add lines on the graph indicating where leaders have changed etc. and perhaps add in the Neilson polling for the primary vote as well. I haven't included Galaxy because I can't find a convenient source that has all the results tabulated. I thought I should get the ball rolling on how we want to include these (should they replace the current tables?) and whether they need any more changes (like some averaged trendlines or something.). -- Lear's Fool 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Extended content
|
---|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. |
I'm not crazy about it, personally, I'm not really sure what benificial comparison it would bring. The polls taken before the election were between Howard and Rudd, and then we have the election, and then there's a three month break before there's any more polls, and then it's between Rudd and Nelson, so I'm not really sure how they would relate. Shouldn't it simply be one graph for the one term? -- Lear's Fool 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I though each territory had two senators. Why are both listed for retirement? At the moment, 40 senators are listed as retiring in a 76-member chamber. Tony (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Tony, you seem to be equating the probability that both major parties will have one senator each from each territory, with the fact that their terms start and end at different times than the state senators. I can't see that that has anything to do with it. It's the fact that there are only 2 senators, as compared with 12 from the states, that forces this outcome. The mathematics of the proportional preferential system make it virtually a certainty that, no matter which major party's No. 1 candidate wins the first vcacancy, the second vacancy will be won by the other party's No. 1 candidate. And this would be the case no matter when their terms start and end. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Should the infobox be modified to be post-redistribution in the number of seats held, and seat and % swing required? Timeshift ( talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've amended accordingly. Timeshift ( talk) 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The number of seats held is shown on the Parliament House website here: http://aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf This is the only appropriate source of information regarding the "number of seats held" by each party. According to this source the number of seats held are as follows: Labor: 83 Coalition: 55 + 9 = 64 Independent: 3 Total: 150
I have updated the article as appropriate. -- Rational1991 ( talk) 11:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Post redistribution numbers are by no means exact, they are vague estimates by private individuals from observations of voting behaviour on a booth by booth basis. I personally do not feel the use of these estimates in the infobox is appropriate, it would be appropriate if the AEC published the data. As a result, I feel that the infobox can only legitimately display the results of elections (ie. the last general election and by elections), this essentially means the composition of the parliament at dissolution.
-- Rational1991 ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a triple adjective. Is it Canley or Fool's Lear? Could you please ensure that the hyphen is in the title of the graph next time you update it? The title could be in a larger font-size, too. Tony (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Both go back quite a way, but indicate wrongly that Gillard and Abbott are the subjects throughout. This is wrong. Tony (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Who can't see that the leadership poll results from previous leaders are wider caused by that extra number next to each and every result to indicate a footnote? It is how it's always been done and nobody's ever taken an issue until now... another Tonyism? Feel free to propose suggestions for improvement... but don't act the way you're acting over it. On a wider issue... people spend years here doing good work, it's incredible how much ozpol articles have grown and matured, but then you come along and start criticising everything and tearing everything down, why? Just a thought. Timeshift ( talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
How about you both cool it? This really isn't helping. The point of this section is supposed to be about discussing the poll tables. I have to say that I think the current format is fine - it is made clear that there is something different about the pre-Gillard/Abbott ratings. However, they haven't really been adapted for the smaller format, which I'll try to do now (still showing footnotes for Howard and Nelson when there are no such ratings, etc.). Frickeg ( talk) 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Date | Labor Gillard |
Liberal Abbott |
---|---|---|
16–18 Jul 2010 | 57% | 27% |
25–27 Jun 2010 | 53% | 29% |
Rudd | Abbott | |
14–16 May 2010 | 49% | 33% |
30 Apr – 2 May 2010 | 50% | 32% |
Rudd | Turnbull | |
16–18 Apr 2010 | 56% | 29% |
26–28 Mar 2010 | 59% | 27% |
Polling conducted by
Newspoll and published in
The Australian. ^Remainder were "uncommitted" to either leader. |
-- Canley ( talk) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the tables at Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2010 are missing the leader change rows. Timeshift ( talk) 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Page visits for this article this month. It's a high-profile page. Settling down to more than 2000 hits a day, which is sure to increase. Good PR for WP. Tony (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors are reminded of the difference, which is misused in the main text of all articles on previous federal elections I've looked at.
←The SMH and apparently at least the Victorian EC—and very possibly other ECs—would say "three-point swing", or perhaps in the first occurrence in a piece, "three-percentage-point swing". It's not rocket-science, and it's unambiguous and mathematically correct. I've seen instances this morning of "percentage" that are plain wrong, mathematically. Tony (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And in response to Canley's previous entry: "Across the arc of an electoral pendulum I could still say that was a swing of 40%". Yep, and it would be wrong to use "40 points", because the original numbers, rather than percentages or proportions, are being compared. This is where the confusion arises, but it's easy. When talking of a change in percentage, you need to use "percentage point", or plain "point". Most usage in these electoral articles is explicitly in terms of changing percentages.
"The swing just happens to correspond to the difference between the percentage votes." Difference or swing or lead or gap, it's the same, because the difference between two percentage values is at issue; if you render that difference in terms of "percentage", readers will not know whether the difference is with respect to the whole 100% (that's usually what is intended) or the first of the two percentage values (that's the default reference, I'm afraid, and not usually intended by writers).
"... just because the SMH and VEC use those terms does not mean plain "percentage swing" is wrong". The problem is still there, becuase either value (swing-from or swing-to) is always either mentioned or implied. Tony (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Antony Green has given his two cents on this topic on his election Q&A—his answer: either is correct (which is what I was saying).
-- Canley ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Referring back to the issue we discussed here: I now feel completely vindicated. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 ( talk) 06:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Lear's Fool for posting these valuable updates. I'm sorry to be the complainer again, but ... well ... that's what I do. I hope this is taken in a positive frame.
In the meantime, I've added lead sentences for each graph. The basic principle, I believe, should be that readers shouldn't have to double-click on a graph (and then click on a further expansion at Commons) to see the basics. Tony (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
←The British had a a graph of the running average of four pollsters, I think. Surely it's not OR. Thanks for taking the trouble to do these graphs: it's really useful. Tony (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to make all your lives difficult - it seems Newspoll will no longer be publishing an individual Liberal and National vote. Timeshift ( talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting in early here, in what will probably turn out to be a forlorn hope. But I have to ask.
Can we please not report that Julia or Tony is the "winner" of the debate, unless we define what we mean, or anyone means, by that term? The media regularly obsesses about winners of political debates, but they never explain that, beyond whatever the worm does. Does it mean that everyone is now going to vote for the "winner"'s party come election day? Certainly not. Or that enough people will vote that way to give that party victory? Well, maybe, but how can we tell for sure, a month out from the election? I can't imagine what else it might mean. After all, one of the purposes of these debates is to have an opportunity to put your side's case, and to do so as persuasively as possible. If you succeed in persuading enough people to vote for your side, then of course you're a winner, but that can only be judged on election day. Another purpose, I suppose, is to engender community debate about particular issues, and in that sense, there are no winners or losers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
←Here, what the media "say" can be reported; preferably with their reasons. Tony (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack, I don't think it's up to us to analyse how the audience came to their vote, it just did what it did, just like any vote. It doesn't need a yardstick. Timeshift ( talk) 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I had to post a word of encouragement at the talk page of a newish user whose head had been bitten off by Timeshift9 for replacing an image at an article related to this one. I thought the edit-summary of Timeshift's revert was a little aggressive, too. The user had just returned after 15 months, and has not edited much since arriving a few years ago. S/he has asked why the image can't be included elsewhere on the page; it's worth considering.
Timeshift removed my polite note about biting off E.3's head from his/her talk page four minutes after I posted it, with an offensive edit-summary ("sometimes i just wish i could block particular people from posting to me...). This aggressive behaviour really needs to stop. It's going to end up as a civility complaint at AN/I before long. The civility code makes it quite clear what should not be said, whether on a talk page or an edit-summary.
I ask all users to welcome others into this topic area. Wikipedia is now short of good editors and can ill afford to turn off entrants. Tony (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this is a little contentious, and can I suggest that reverting and discussing through edit summaries is probably less preferable than discussing it here. To get the discussion going, I agree with the version Timeshift and Rebecca are protecting: I do not feel it is appropriate for there to be an external link to the election coverage for every media outlet, but I do feel that the ABC, both in it's capacity as the national broadcaster and as a particularly good source for factual (rather than op-ed) coverage of the election makes it's inclusion appropriate. -- Lear's Fool 09:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, I think I stuffed up the info box, sorry - I should leave it to you wiser heads than me the novice.
Also, are we going to put the ABC and others back in the External links? I'd like to see some external info on the election in. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the lead reads:
Since the use of the group voting ticket is optional (but voting isn't), is there a way we can improve this without confusing things? Removing "group voting tickets" will still make it true, but less descriptive, but keeping it is slightly misleading (even if almost everyone votes above the line). But I understand how the Senate is a little difficult to summarise into a sentence. Perhaps "single transferable vote with the option of following a group voting ticket" if it isn't too long? StuartH ( talk) 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Gillard had the option of calling a double-dissolution election, but didn't? (one wonders why she didn't, actually). -- Surturz ( talk) 06:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Bad timing I know. Looks like Murray (Sharman Stone) will be abolished... Timeshift ( talk) 06:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Following the close of the electoral roll, the AEC has released information here on the number of voters enrolled to vote by total, and by age range, per state. Is that information that should be included on this page? Jherschel ( talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to update the new Nielsen and Morgan numbers later this afternoon, but I was just wondering what support there would be for me generating another set of graphs that only capture the last few months, given the higher polling frequency during this time. It could be done in the vein of this graph from the UK election this year, and may also include labels showing when major events occured (eg the debate, party launches, monumental stuff-ups etc), although I am aware that we need to be care of suggesting our own conclusions ( WP:SYN as Timeshift would say). -- Lear's Fool 04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Graph update required. Neilsen 53-47 to Labor, Gillard approval up, Abbott approval down. Timeshift ( talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems only logical that if we are going to have a multi-company 2PP graph that we include all five players, not just a random three... Timeshift ( talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
!!! Where is an appropriate place for this? It is undoubtedly noteworthy. Timeshift ( talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
TimeShift, with your heading you should work for labor! I think it is pretty important, as the ruling being of 'upheld', this will mean extra votes for Labor and the Green. Here is the ABC's take on the judgement http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/06/2975602.htm?section=justin. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Labor's finally having its campaign "launch" on Monday 16 August [6]. Is it just me, or is it completely ridiculous to give a speech 5 days before an election, 30 days into a 35-day official campaign, and call it a "launch"? What are they launching at this late juncture? Even the Libs "launch" was way too late to be called that. These really stretch the meaning of the language, and insult people's intelligence into the bargain. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this and/or this a good addition to the page? Betting odds have historically shown to be an excellent predictor of election outcomes. Labor's odds continue to shorten. I also notice the rather short odds on Family First winning a seat... Timeshift ( talk) 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this page/Wikipedia's role would be enhanced with links to pages that documents developments and responses to the various policies being proposed and defended in this election? Leighblackall ( talk) 01:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Combining Gillard (ladies first) and Abbott in various ways, we get:
Sorry, I'm in a frivolous mood. Delete if you feel so inclined. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
22,000 voters in 54 marginal seats and 6,000 in safe seats, massive. For Labor, NSW: Lindsay, Bennelong, Macarthur and Robertson lost, retain Eden-Monaro and Dobell, win Paterson and Cowper. QLD: Brisbane, Bonner, Petrie, Leichhardt, Forde, Dawson, Flynn and Dickson lost. VIC: Corangamite lost, McEwen, La Trobe and Dunkley won. SA: Boothby won. WA: Hasluck and Swan lost. Total: 79 Labor, 68 coalition, 3 independent. Labor marginals 2PP 49.2%, national 2PP 51.6%.
"The super-sample poll published by Fairfax, covering 22,000 voters in 54 seats (about 400 each), turns out to have been conducted not by Nielsen, but an outfit called JWS Research whose automated phone polling on the weekend were widely noted at the time. The Sydney Morning Herald sells its managing director John Scales as “a renowned pollster” who was director of Morgan from 1992 to 1995, and research director at Crosby Textor (Liberal Party strategy firm) from 2002 until earlier this year."
Comments appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 06:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
And just to explain it rather simply, this poll gave a 51.6% 2PP to the ALP. Most polls are around 52% ALP 2PP. But if some seats are swinging up to 10%, basic maths says there has to be an opposite swing somewhere else. This poll completely fits with what we're observing. Timeshift ( talk) 10:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OOH! Now we have a seat-by-seat breakdown!!! See here. I can't believe they're giving Labor 57% in McEwen and Dunkley, and 54% in Cowper and Boothby! Bring on Saturday! Timeshift ( talk) 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Pictures for the Party Leaders are pretty bad(Julia's head/face is larger than Abbot's that seems a little biased and appears to be shown clearer and in more detail - which indicates bias). Can we get better ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.187.118 ( talk) 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there, all the newspapers in their endorsments of the major parties refer to both 'Labor' and 'The Coalition' rater than Liberal. Would it be much trouble to create a party colour (The same colour as the LNP, as it is undoutably a merged Coalition) to show both the Liberal and National Parties in there endorsed position as they are clearly endorsing the ' The Coalition'. Романов ( talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The newspaper endorsements are wrong. According to yesterday's Australian, the SMH didn't endorse anyone, and the Sunday Herald Sun endorsed Labor, there may be more errors too, those are the only ones I can recall. 131.236.167.107 ( talk) 05:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
...is very obscure. I don't want a revert war, but really, it's rubbish. How about spelling out the meaning in other words? HiLo48 ( talk)
Relative majority. See Plurality (voting). It's not clear the ALP has "won" since it looks like it will be a hung parliament meaning who forms government depends on who the Independent and Green MPs support. Dramedy Tonight ( talk) 11:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48, stop your vandalism, you already started the revert war. About that word you don´t know about, as explained above and it is linked in the article. This all showcases Wikipedia failures. -- Thomaskh ( talk) 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not accept your "advice" because it wasn´t me who added the links. haha That´s just laughable. -- Thomaskh ( talk) 11:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, plurality is a North American polisci term. British/Australian English uses "relative majority". In any case, saying "she won" was very premature. Dramedy Tonight ( talk) 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
...Especially since she lost. She's received fewer seats than Abbot, and considering what she did to Rudd, she's got NO credebility in negotiations. Ericl ( talk) 00:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Who won the 2PP? Labor :) A minority of Australians voted for the coalition :) Timeshift ( talk) 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You're all being very childish, kiddies. And now getting way off topic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Any chance we can ease up on the competition to be first to post the speculative news? Why the rush? HiLo48 ( talk) 11:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, be the first to know.....^^-- Thomaskh ( talk) 11:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is anybody able to fathom whether or not the WA Nationals should or shouldn't be included in Coalition totals? Most of the national results are including them automatically without comment but some of the specific stories are stating that Crook will sit with the Nationals but not with the Coalition. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Why are there polls of the satisfaction of the individual party leaders on this page but no clear polling of the satisfaction of the parties other than that graph. Also, the polls of the satisfaction of the leaders is set out very strangely. Why is the dissatisfaction only shown for the liberal party - i know you can figure out the satisfaction by subtracting it from 100, but why not show the satisfaction of the liberal leaders rather than showing the dissatisfaction? And then what are these random last two columns on the right that just say "satisfied" "dissatisfied" without showing who it is referring to.. perhaps I'm an idiot and missing something here but this part of the table is hard for me to understand, and i'm not generally an idiot, so i suggest that it is changed, and i also suggest that it shows the satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction for liberal leaders. Javsav ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Date | Labor Gillard |
Liberal Abbott |
---|---|---|
17–19 Aug 2010 | 50% | 37% |
13–15 Aug 2010 | 50% | 35% |
6–8 Aug 2010 | 49% | 34% |
30 Jul – 1 Aug 2010 | 50% | 35% |
23–25 Jul 2010 | 50% | 34% |
16–18 Jul 2010 | 57% | 27% |
25–27 Jun 2010 | 53% | 29% |
Rudd | Abbott | |
18–20 Jun 2010 | 46% | 37% |
28–30 May 2010 | 49% | 33% |
14–16 May 2010 | 49% | 33% |
30 Apr – 2 May 2010 | 50% | 32% |
16–18 Apr 2010 | 56% | 29% |
26–28 Mar 2010 | 59% | 27% |
12–14 Mar 2010 | 55% | 30% |
26–28 Feb 2010 | 55% | 30% |
12–14 Feb 2010 | 55% | 27% |
29–31 Jan 2010 | 58% | 26% |
15–17 Jan 2010 | 57% | 25% |
4–6 Dec 2009 | 60% | 23% |
Rudd | Turnbull | |
27–29 Nov 2009 | 65% | 14% |
13–15 Nov 2009 | 63% | 22% |
30 Oct – 1 Nov 2009 | 63% | 19% |
16–18 Oct 2009 | 65% | 19% |
28 Sep – 1 Oct 2009 | 67% | 18% |
Polling conducted by
Newspoll and published in
The Australian. ^Remainder were "uncommitted". |
Date | Satisfied Gillard |
Dissatisfied Abbot |
Satisfied | Dissatisfied |
---|---|---|---|---|
17–19 Aug 2010 | 44% | 43% | 42% | 50% |
13–15 Aug 2010 | 44% | 38% | 43% | 46% |
6–8 Aug 2010 | 43% | 41% | 41% | 49% |
30 Jul – 1 Aug 2010 | 42% | 40% | 44% | 46% |
23–25 Jul 2010 | 41% | 37% | 40% | 46% |
16–18 Jul 2010 | 48% | 29% | 36% | 51% |
25–27 Jun 2010 | N/A (new) | N/A (new) | 42% | 41% |
Rudd | Abbott | |||
18–20 Jun 2010 | 36% | 55% | 38% | 49% |
28–30 May 2010 | 36% | 54% | 37% | 49% |
14–16 May 2010 | 39% | 51% | 42% | 45% |
30 Apr – 2 May 2010 | 39% | 50% | 45% | 43% |
16–18 Apr 2010 | 50% | 41% | 46% | 40% |
26–28 Mar 2010 | 51% | 39% | 44% | 43% |
12–14 Mar 2010 | 48% | 41% | 47% | 38% |
26–28 Feb 2010 | 51% | 40% | 48% | 38% |
12–14 Feb 2010 | 50% | 40% | 44% | 37% |
29–31 Jan 2010 | 50% | 38% | 41% | 39% |
15–17 Jan 2010 | 52% | 34% | 40% | 35% |
4–6 Dec 2009 | 58% | 32% | N/A (new) | N/A (new) |
Rudd | Turnbull | |||
27–29 Nov 2009 | 56% | 34% | 36% | 50% |
13–15 Nov 2009 | 56% | 34% | 34% | 50% |
30 Oct – 1 Nov 2009 | 59% | 32% | 32% | 51% |
16–18 Oct 2009 | 63% | 28% | 32% | 54% |
28 Sep – 1 Oct 2009 | 67% | 21% | 33% | 48% |
Polling conducted by
Newspoll and published in
The Australian. ^Remainder were "uncommitted". |
Was Internet censorship in Australia a significant issue in this election, and will the loss interfere with plans for a China-style censorship of Net traffic? Wnt ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is using both Template:Australian Labor Party/meta/color and Template:Australian politics/party colours/Labor but the shades of red are different. Can someone skilled with colour templates either get the two onto the same colour or ensure the article only uses one of these? Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
How much should we talk about the potential leanings of independents? Apart from the two Greens/ex-Greens, there's three independents, all former Nationals who hated the party and left. Now we're getting indications that Katter has been insulted by them, and we're hearing about how they are really wanting the NBN. Should commentary on these issues be added? Timeshift ( talk) 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ta da! Timeshift ( talk) 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Overall Change
Party, New, Total
Liberal/National Party, 18, 34
Australian Labor Party, 15, 31
Australian Greens, 6, 9
Others , 1, 2
VIC
Candidate, Party
1 Kim John CARR, Australian Labor Party
2 Michael RONALDSON, Liberal Party
3 Richard DI NATALE, Australian Greens
4 Stephen Michael CONROY, Australian Labor Party
5 Bridget McKENZIE, The Nationals
6 John MADIGAN, DLP - Democratic Labor Party
NSW
Candidate, Party
1 Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS, Liberal Party
2 John FAULKNER, Australian Labor Party
3 William HEFFERNAN, Liberal Party
4 Matthew THISTLETHWAITE, Australian Labor Party
5 Fiona NASH, The Nationals
6 Lee RHIANNON, Australian Greens
QLD
Candidate, Party
1 George Henry BRANDIS, Liberal National
2 Joe LUDWIG, Australian Labor Party
3 Barnaby JOYCE, Liberal National
4 Jan McLUCAS, Australian Labor Party
5 Larissa WATERS, Australian Greens
6 Brett MASON, Liberal National
WA
Candidate, Party
1 Mathias CORMANN, Liberal Party
2 Chris EVANS, Australian Labor Party
3 Chris BACK, Liberal Party
4 Glenn STERLE, Australian Labor Party
5 Judith ADAMS, Liberal Party
6 Rachel SIEWERT, Australian Greens
SA
Candidate, Party
1 Alex GALLACHER, Australian Labor Party
2 Mary Jo FISHER, Liberal Party
3 Anne McEWEN, Australian Labor Party
4 Sean EDWARDS, Liberal Party
5 Penny WRIGHT, Australian Greens
6 David FAWCETT, Liberal Party
TAS
Candidate, Party
1 Helen POLLEY, Australian Labor Party
2 Eric ABETZ, Liberal Party
3 Christine MILNE, Australian Greens
4 Anne URQUHART, Australian Labor Party
5 Stephen Shane PARRY, Liberal Party
6 Lisa SINGH, Australian Labor Party
NT
Candidate, Party
1 Nigel SCULLION, Country Liberal Party
2 Trish CROSSIN, Australian Labor Party
ACT
Candidate, Party
1 Kate Alexandra LUNDY, Australian Labor Party
2 Gary HUMPHRIES, Liberal Party
Source:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/senate-results.htm
note: I also live in Australia (although it doesn't really matter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloryify ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Gloryify ( talk) 04:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (DOH!, forgot to sign my name the first time)
Can someone please explain "hung parliament"? Unless it's an exact tie, then how is there not a majority party? 75.221.177.161 ( talk) 07:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Can this table be numbered so that the number of moving seats does not have to be counted manually? Tabletop ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where to obtain an election map of Australian constituencies (preferably svg)? I could not find one the website of the Australian Electoral Commission. -- Furfur ( talk) 23:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.248.187 ( talk)
We are told in the article, presumably quite accurately, that "After counting on election night, the Labor Party had received a primary vote of 38.6%. If reflected in the final results, it would be the lowest for a governing party since World War II."
The Coalition primary vote was 34.1%. How does that look historically for an opposition? HiLo48 ( talk) 09:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's quite a silly and moot point really. I wouldn't vote Liberal in a fit, and I voted Green. I support a continued Labor government which I get to indicate through my preferencing. Labor has won the national 2PP vote. So exactly how does a low primary vote have any bearing on governing legitimacy? It's funny how for the first time since federation it's clearly Labor that's getting a clear majority of preferences, and now they kick up a fuss... directed at nobody in particular. Timeshift ( talk) 10:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I've actually gone ahead and removed it like the rest of the News Ltd sensationalist wording in there. The results table is there, readers can make their own conclusions. Timeshift ( talk) 10:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
How should we list them in the results? Unfortunately the tories had to throw the Liberal National Party in to the coalition pie, to add to the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, the Country Liberal Party, not to mention the Liberal/National group voting ticket and the seperate National WA/SA tickets in the Senate. Originally I combined them all as "The Coalition", but it's too slangy. I thought Lib/Nat/LNP/CLP Coalition is more proper, but Pomahob disagrees. I don't think it's an option to seperate them all out. How should it be labelled? Maybe just Liberal/National Coalition which covers every branch's name in some form...? Timeshift ( talk) 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary results
Lower house
'In a total of 150 seats, 76 seats form a majority government. Results are progressively updated using the official Australian Electoral Commission statistics. The following seat numbers are confirmed seats from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:[6][7]'
This above section is very confusing and changing all the time. It states that the table is confirmed by the ABC website, so I update, according to the ABC and the referenced ABC link, then I am told that it should be from the AEC, which one is it???? It is very confusing to have links and reference from ABC and AEC, should we just not use the official AEC and wait for FINAL results to have this table - it's kinda like putting the cart before the horse, is it not? CanberraBulldog ( talk) 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
... I ask that people stick to the process that has always been used. The AEC is used for the votes, while the ABC is used for the seats. Obviously, the AEC should be used for votes as they are the ones who conducted the vote and are in the process of counting and updating the vote. The ABC is and has been used because they tend to spend more time actually crunching the numbers. The percentages are taken from the linked AEC ref in the article, the seats are taken from the win column (confirmed by ABC standards), not the predicted column, taken from the ABC ref in the article. An extra part has been added to the table for seats 'in doubt'. And each bit of this has been spelt out above the results tables in the article! There is nothing at all biased or unfair about this process, and it's the way it's always been. So please stick to this process, and if there is an issue i'm sure it can be sorted out by WP:CONSENSUS, but until then, please, let's keep some logic to this. Thankyou. Timeshift ( talk) 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it strange to use a News source for seats and the Official AEC just for votes, but if that's the way it is then that sounds good. Thanks for explaining it so well and explaining the logic. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 07:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are the results in the article based on official AEC results or ABC results? Or is it AEC results on the votes and other stats but ABC's call on the seats only? The introductory paragraph above the table does not make this entirely clear. It would seem unhelpful to rely on two sources, as different editors are changing the results based on conflicting sources. Can we decide on one source and stick to it — or at least make it abundantly clear what the source is for each type of data and only update the table according to the appropriate source? — sroc ( talk) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
ABC is now saying 4 'others' I assume that means 4 independents - should we update the table or just leave it as is? whoops, it just now changed ALP to 71 - wow the table sure does change! CanberraBulldog ( talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)?
{{
editsemiprotected}}
With a total of 150 seats in the House of Representatives, 76 seats are needed to form a majority government.
Vote counts shown below are progressively updated using the official Australian Electoral Commission statistics. [1] The seat numbers are figures calculated by the Australian Electoral Commission as having been decided. [2] [3]
Party | Votes | % | Swing | Seats | Change | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liberal/National Coalition | 43.5 | +1.4 | 72 | |||
Australian Labor Party | 38.5 | –4.9 | 70 | |||
Australian Greens | 11.4 | +3.6 | 1 | +1 | ||
Independents | 2.6 | +0.4 | 4 | +1 | ||
Other | 4.0 | 0 | 0 | |||
seats 'in doubt' | 3 | |||||
Total | 150 | |||||
Australian Labor Party | 50.63 | –2.07 | 70 | |||
Liberal/National Coalition | 49.37 | +2.07 | 72 |
Results released on the night of the election indicated that a hung parliament was likely, with independents and the Greens holding the balance of power. [4] Both Labor and the Coalition appeared to have fallen short of the 76 seats required for majority government. Accordingly, either side requires the support of crossbenchers to govern. On the crossbench, the Greens won a seat at a general election for the first time with Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne, with all three incumbent independents successfully re-elected, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott. [5] [6] and Andrew Wilkie as additional new independent. [7] In addition, Tony Crook, the member elected as a Western Australian National for the district of O'Connor is not a part of the coalition.
All three old independents were formerly members of the National Party, the minor party of the Coalition; however, they have not yet indicated their support for either party. [8] Wilkie had been a previous member of The Greens. Bandt, The Greens, had previously announced he would align with Labor in the event of a hung parliament. [9] Both major party leaders are seeking to form a minority government. [10] [6] [11]
Seat | Party, pre-2010 | Member, pre-2010 | Margin, pre-2010 % | Swing | Margin, post-2010 % | Likely member, post-2010 | Party, post-2010 | ||
Batman, Vic | Labor | Martin John Ferguson | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Not in doubt, but not declared yet | Labor | ||
Bennelong, NSW | Labor | Maxine McKew | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | John Alexander | Liberal | ||
Bonner, Qld | Labor | Kerry Rea | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Ross Vasta | LNP | ||
Brisbane, Qld | Labor | Arch Bevis | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Teresa Gambaro | Liberal | ||
Corangamite, Vic | Labor | Darren Cheeseman | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | In doubt | |||
Dawson, Qld | Labor | James Bidgood | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | George Christensen | LNP | ||
Denison, Tas | Labor | Duncan Kerr | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Andrew Wilkie | Independent | ||
Dickson, Qld | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Peter Dutton | LNP | ||
Flynn, Qld | Labor | Chris Trevor | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Ken O'Dowd | LNP | ||
Forde, Qld | Labor | Brett Raguse | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Bert Van Manen | LNP | ||
Gilmore, NSW | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Joanna Gash | Liberal | ||
Hasluck, WA | Labor | Sharryn Jackson | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | In doubt | |||
Herbert, Qld | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Ewen Jones | LNP | ||
La Trobe, Vic | Liberal | Jason Wood | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Laura Smyth | Labor | ||
Leichhardt, Qld | Labor | Jim Turnour | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Warren Entsch | LNP | ||
Longman, Qld | Labor | Jon Sullivan | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Wyatt Roy | LNP | ||
Macarthur, NSW | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Russell Matheson | Liberal | ||
Macquarie, NSW | Labor | Bob Debus | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Louise Markus | Liberal | ||
Melbourne, Vic | Labor | Lindsay Tanner | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Adam Bandt | Greens | ||
McEwen, Vic | Liberal | Fran Bailey | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Rob Mitchell | Labor | ||
O'Connor, WA | Liberal | Wilson Tuckey | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Tony Crook | National | ||
Solomon, NT | Labor | Damian Hale | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Natasha Griggs | CLP | ||
Swan, WA | Labor | Notional | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Steve Irons | Liberal |
84.46.46.34 (
talk)
14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)